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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 

v. Case No. 08-cr-122-01-SM

Jessica Belleville,

 Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant Belleville’s motion to continue the trial is granted (document

no. 15). Trial has been rescheduled for the month of April 2009. Defendant

Belleville shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than March 12, 2009. 

On the filing of such waiver, her 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 exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Case 1:08-cr-00122-SM Document 16 Filed 03/05/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The Change of Plea Hearing or Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for

April 8, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. 

Jury selection will take place on April 17, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

March 5, 2009

cc: R. Brian Snow, Esq.

Don Feith, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:08-cr-00122-SM Document 16 Filed 03/05/09 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                         -----------------------------


The Board of Directors
Converse Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements 
(Nos:  33-87806 and 333-13269) on Form S-8 of Converse Inc. of our report dated 
February 15, 1995, relating to the consolidated statements of operations, cash 
flows and stockholders' equity (deficiency) of Converse Inc. and subsidiaries 
for the year ended December 31, 1994, which report appears in the December 28, 
1996 annual report on Form 10-K of Converse Inc.



                                                /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

                                                KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 19, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Document no. 109. 1

Document no. 101. This court already denied the rest of 2

the plaintiff’s motion, which sought leave to take two other

depositions after the deadline as well. Order dated Dec. 1,

2009.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Karen S. Bartlett et al.

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00358-JL

Mutual Pharmaceutical

Company, Inc., et al.

O R D E R

The parties have filed cross-motions seeking to further

depose plaintiff Gregory Bartlett. Mutual initially took Mr.

Bartlett’s discovery deposition on October 28, 2009. During the

deposition, Mr. Bartlett refused to answer some of Mutual’s

questions, invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination on the advice of his criminal counsel. Mutual has

now moved to compel his testimony, arguing that he had no basis

for invoking the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs, noting that 1

Mr. Bartlett is currently incarcerated and may be unavailable at

trial, have moved for leave to take his trial preservation

deposition.2

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 120 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 3
The request for fees and costs is denied because, among 3

other things, the plaintiffs have shown an independent reason for

further deposing Mr. Bartlett. See infra.

Since Mr. Bartlett’s answers will be compelled by court 4

order, this court’s view is that they may not be introduced

against him in any other proceeding, if later determined to be

self-incriminatory. See, e.g., Sher v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans

Affairs, 488 F.3d 489, 501 n.10 (1st Cir. 2007). 

2

Having reviewed the relevant portions of Mr. Bartlett’s

deposition transcript, this court agrees with Mutual that none of

its counsel’s questions created any risk of self-incrimination. 

Mutual’s motion is therefore GRANTED (except as to fees and

costs ). Mutual may reopen and complete Mr. Bartlett’s discovery 3

deposition. Mr. Bartlett is hereby ordered to answer the

questions that he previously refused to answer, as well as any

other questions that do not require self-incrimination or a

privilege waiver.4

This court also agrees with the plaintiff that a trial

preservation deposition is warranted under the circumstances. 

There is good cause to extend the applicable deadline for that

limited purpose. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore GRANTED as well

(to the extent that it has not already been denied, see supra

note 2). Plaintiff may conduct a trial preservation deposition

of Mr. Bartlett, with a maximum length of seven hours. If

feasible, that deposition shall be conducted on the same date as

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 120 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 3
3

the reopened discovery deposition in order to minimize expense

and inconvenience to the parties and witness.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: January 12, 2010

cc: Bryan Ballew, Esq.

Keith M. Jensen, Esq.

Patrick J. O’Neal, Esq.

Christine M. Craig, Esq.

Timothy B. Beaupre, Esq.

Jeffrey D. Geoppinger, Esq.

Joseph P. Thomas, Esq.

Paul J. Cosgrove, Esq.

Linda E. Maichl, Esq.

Stephen J. Judge, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 120 Filed 01/12/10 Page 3 of 3
~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~

~~~ ~~~

~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~

~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~

~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~

~

~

~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~

~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 24 Filed 10/29/08 Page 1 of 3
~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~

~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 24 Filed 10/29/08 Page 2 of 3
~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~

~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~

~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~

~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~

~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~

Case 1:08-cv-00428-PB Document 24 Filed 10/29/08 Page 3 of 3
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00563-CV

In re Elusive Holdings, Inc.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Relator Elusive Holdings, Inc. has filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a 

motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1, 52.10(a). The Court grants Relator’s motion 

for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b). The Court temporarily stays, pending further 

order of this Court, the trial court’s September 2, 2021 order styled “Order Granting Jacob White’s 

Application for Mandamus – Books and Records” in Cause No. D-1-GN-19-005577; Elusive 

Holdings, Inc. v. Jacob White; In the 53rd District Court of Travis County, Texas.

It is so ordered on December 2, 2021.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

The Freedom from Religion Foundation;

Jan Doe and Pat Doe, Parents; DoeChild-1,

Doe-Child-2, and DoeChild-3, Minor Children,

Plaintiffs

v. Case No. 07-cv-356-SM

Hanover School District,

Dresden School District, and

School Administrative Unit 70,

Defendants

The United States of America,

Intervenor-Defendant

The State of New Hampshire,

Intervenor-Defendant

Anna Chobanian, John Chobanian,

Kathryn Chobanian, Schuyler Cyrus,

Elijah Cyrus, Rhys Cyrus, Austin Cyrus,

Daniel Phan, Muriel Cyrus, Michael Chobanian,

Margarethe Chobanian, Minh Phan, Suzu Phan,

an the Knights of Columbus,

Intervenors-Defendant

J U D G M E N T

In accordance with the Orders of Chief Judge Steven J. McAuliffe dated August 7,

2008, granting in part the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; and September 30, 2009,

granting the Motions to Dismiss by Defendants’ Hanover School District, Dresden School

Case 1:07-cv-00356-SM Document 61 Filed 09/30/09 Page 1 of 2
District and School Administrative Unit 70; Intervenors-Defendant Muriel Cyrus, et al; and

Intervenor-Defendant the United States of America, judgment is hereby entered.

By the Court,

 /s/ James R. Starr

James R. Starr, Clerk

September 30, 2009

cc: Michael A. Newdow, Esq. 

Rosanna T. Fox, Esq.

David H. Bradley, Esq.

Eric B. Beckenhauer, Esq.

Gretchen Leah With, Esq.

Theodore C. Hirt, Esq.

Nancy J. Smith, Esq. 

Eric C. Rassbach, Esq. 

Kevin J. Hasson, Esq. 

Bradford T. Atwood, Esq.

John A. Simmons, Sr., Esq.

Benjamin W. Bull, Esq. 

David A. Cortman, Esq. 

Jeremy D. Tedesco, Esq.

Michael J. Compitello, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00356-SM Document 61 Filed 09/30/09 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1456 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1456

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

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

                                 An Act

 
 To expand the boundary of the Booker T. Washington National Monument, 
                         and for other purposes.

    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 ``Booker T. Washington National 
Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. BOUNDARY OF BOOKER T. WASHINGTON NATIONAL MONUMENT EXPANDED.

    The Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the establishment of the 
Booker T. Washington National Monument'', approved April 2, 1956 (16 
U.S.C. 450ll et seq.), is amended by adding at the end the following 
new section:

``SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL LANDS.

    ``(a) Lands Added to Monument.--The boundary of the Booker T. 
Washington National Monument is modified to include the approximately 
15 acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled `Boundary Map, 
Booker T. Washington National Monument, Franklin County, Virginia', 
numbered BOWA 404/80,024, and dated February 2001. The map shall be on 
file and available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the 
National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
    ``(b) Acquisition of Additional Lands.--The Secretary of the 
Interior is authorized to acquire from willing owners the land or 
interests in land described in subsection (a) by donation, purchase 
with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.
    ``(c) Administration of Additional Lands.--Lands added to the 
Booker T. Washington National Monument by subsection (a) shall be 
administered by the Secretary of the Interior as part of the monument 
in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 08-cr-129-01-SM

Anthony Rabbia

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 54) is

granted. Trial has been rescheduled for the July 2010 trial period. 

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 exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Change of Plea: June 30, 2010 at 9:30 AM

Case 1:08-cr-00129-SM Document 55 Filed 05/24/10 Page 1 of 2
or

Final Pretrial Conference July 9, 2010 at 4:00 PM 

Jury Selection: July 20, 2010 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

May 24, 2010 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

2

Case 1:08-cr-00129-SM Document 55 Filed 05/24/10 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-133-01-SM

Francis Ndemi Mwangi

O R D E R

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

trial is granted (document 16). Trial has been rescheduled for the March 2008

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

later than December 31, 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: February 22, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Jury Selection: March 4, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00133-SM Document 17 Filed 12/18/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

December 18, 2007

cc: Paul Garrity, Esq.

Arnold Huftalen, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00133-SM Document 17 Filed 12/18/07 Page 2 of 2
# United States Court of Appeals
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

May 2, 2010

ERRATA

______________________

Appeal No. 2010-5108

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES,

v. UNITED STATES.

Decided: April 15, 2011

Precedential Opinion

______________________

Please make the following change:

Page 18, line 12, change “highly unlikely” to “highly likely”.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-028-01-SM

Allen Potter

O R D E R

Defendant appeared for a bail revocation hearing pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3148. The defendant has once again tested dirty for

marijuana - not only the early March test but yesterday. 

Given the number of failed opportunities to comply with

conditions I find that the defendant is unlikely to abide by any

condition or combination of conditions. The conditions of

release are revoked.

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

Case 1:05-cr-00028-SM Document 23 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 2
2

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.

___________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 28, 2006 

cc: Bjorn R. Lange, Esq.

 Mark A. Irish, AUSA

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00028-SM Document 23 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-030-03-PB

 

Elvis Delarosa

O R D E R

The defendant, Elvis Delarosa, moved for a sentence

reduction based upon the cocaine base ("crack cocaine") amendment

to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines implementing the Fair

Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372

(2010) ("2010 Fair Sentencing Act") (document no. 98). That

amendment was given retroactive effect on November 1, 2011. For

the reasons stated below, the defendant's motion to reduce

sentence is DENIED. 

The 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, by omission, prohibits persons

who received a career offender guideline sentence from receiving

a sentence reduction based upon the retroactive application of

the cocaine base amendment. Specifically, the United States

Sentencing Commission amended § 1B1.1, (Application Instructions)

and adopted a three-step approach to determine the sentence to be

imposed. Under § 1B1.1, the court first determines the guideline

range and then considers any departures or variances. Consistent

with that approach, the proposed guideline at §1B1.10, comment
(n.1[A]) was also amended to reflect that "eligibility for

consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by

an amendment listed in subsection (c) that lowers the applicable

guideline range (i.e., the guideline range that corresponds to

the offense level and criminal history category determined

pursuant to § 1B1.1(a), which is determined before consideration

of any departure provision in the Guidelines Manual or any

variances.)." The only exception to reducing the defendant's

term of imprisonment to a term that is less than the minimum of

the amended guideline range would be a sentence which resulted

from a downward departure pursuant to a government motion for

substantial assistance, which has no application here.

In this case, without regard to whether the application of

the cocaine base amendment would result in a reduction of his

base offense level, the defendant's total offense level would not

change because he is a career offender. As a result, because the

career offender guideline was not lowered by the 2010 Fair

Sentencing Act cocaine base amendment, he is not eligible for a

reduction of his sentence. Therefore, the defendant's motion to

for a sentence reduction (document no. 98) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Date: March 23, 2012 __________________________________

Paul J. Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Elvis Delarosa, pro se

Counsel of Record

2
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-mj-48-JM

Derek Potocki

ORDER FOR COMPETENCY EXAMINATION

Defendant, detained on a bank robbery charge moves, by and

through his attorney, for a mental competency examination to

determine his competency to stand trial (Document no. 9). See 18

U.S.C. § 4241(a). Since his arrest about six weeks ago,

defendant has attempted suicide three times. His attorney states

that defendant has had serious mental issues throughout his life. 

AUSA Terry Ollila has no objection and assents to the motion. 

Based upon the facts outlined by counsel, the court finds

reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be

suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally

incompetent to stand trial. 

It is therefore ORDERED that the defendant shall be

committed to the custody of the Attorney General for a period not

to exceed thirty days for placement in a suitable facility where

Case 1:07-cr-00220-SM Document 10 Filed 09/20/07 Page 1 of 2
2

an examination of the defendant’s mental condition can be

conducted to determine his competency to stand trial. The

examining officials shall prepare a report of their findings

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b), which report shall be filed with

this court.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: September 20, 2007

cc: Terry L. Ollila, AUSA

 Jonathan R. Saxe, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00220-SM Document 10 Filed 09/20/07 Page 2 of 2