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. 05-cr-215-05-PB

Michael Wyatt

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the May 1, 2007 trial in

the above case in order to allow the case against co-defendants

Larry and Christopher Stallings to be completed before commencing

the trial against him. Additionally, defendant cites the need

for additional time to properly prepare a defense in light of

failed 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 May 1, 2007 to August 21, 2007. 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 

Case 1:05-cr-00215-PB Document 100 Filed 04/27/07 Page 1 of 2
2

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 27, 2007

cc: Donald Feith, AUSA

R.P. Cornelius, Esq.

William T. Cornelius, Esq.

William Christie, Esq.

Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Michael Smith, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00215-PB Document 100 Filed 04/27/07 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 National Holdings Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Alan B. Levin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  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/
      Alan B. LevinAlan B. Levin
                Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 16, 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Robert V. Towle

v. Civil No. 08-cv-38-JL

NH State Prison, Warden

O R D E R

On March 30, 2010, the Court ordered the petitioner to show cause on or before April 12,

2010, why the petition should not be dismissed or the case would be dismissed as moot. In that the

petitioner has not responded to this order, the case is herewith ordered dismissed as moot. 

SO ORDERED.

April 21, 2010 _________________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

cc: Robert V. Towle, pro se

Elizabeth Woodcock, Esq.

Stephen Fuller, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00038-JL Document 31 Filed 04/21/10 Page 1 of 1
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1761

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at

8588 Richmond Highway in Alexandria, Virginia, as the ‘‘Herb E. Harris

Post Office Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 8, 2001

Mr. MORAN of Virginia (for himself, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr.

SCHROCK, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. GOODE, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. CANTOR, Mr.

BOUCHER, Mr. WOLF, and Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 8588 Richmond Highway in Alexandria, Virginia, as the ‘‘Herb E. Harris 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. HERB E. HARRIS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States

5 Postal Service located at 8588 Richmond Highway in Al6 exandria, Virginia, shall be known and designated as the

7 ‘‘Herb E. Harris Post Office Building’’.
2

•HR 1761 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall

4 be deemed to be a reference to the Herb E. Harris Post

5 Office Building.

Æ
Exhibit 10.2


 





AMENDMENT NO. 1


TO


DIRECTOR AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment No.
1 to the Director Agreement (“Amendment”) between Drone Aviation Holding Corp. and Global Security & Innovative
Strategies, LLC and David V. Aguilar dated January 9, 2017 is by and between Drone Aviation Holding Corp., a Nevada corporation
with an address 11651 Central Parkway #118, Jacksonville FL 32224 (the “Company”) and Global Security & Innovative
Strategies, LLC, an Arizona corporation with an address 1401 H Street NW, Suite 875, Washington, D.C. 20005 (the “Contractor”)
effective as of September 4, 2019.


WHEREAS, the
parties entered into a two-year director agreement on January 9, 2017; and


WHEREAS, the
parties verbally agreed to continue with the agreement until January 9, 2021; and


WHEREAS, the
parties wish to amend the agreement as set forth below, with the understanding that all other provisions of the agreement shall
remain unchanged;


NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


		1.	Compensation. Annual fee of $120,000, payable in monthly installments in accordance with the Company’s
past accounting practices.



 


		2.	The terms and conditions of all other sections of the agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No.
1 as of the date first stated above.


 





	DRONE AVIATION HOLDING CORP.	 	GLOBAL SECURITY & INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES LLC



	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	BY: 	Kendall Carpenter	 	BY:	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Its:	 EVP and CFO	 	Its: 	Principal	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	NOMINEE	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	David V. Aguilar
**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 on Form 10-Q of BPZResources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Manuel Pablo Zúñiga-Pflücker, as Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tothe best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Manuel Pablo Zúñiga-Pflücker* | * * |
|---------------------------------------------------|----------|
| Manuel Pablo  Zúñiga-Pflücker      |
| President and Chief Executive  Officer            |
| November 10, 2008                            |

 

----
23

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

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

2003...... 175 34 35 48 58 .382 .074 .080 .108 .128

2004...... 129 28 17 46 38 .284 .062 .039 .099 .081

2005...... 59 8 16 12 24 .124 .017 .035 .026 .048

 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

USA

v. Case No. 08-mc-44-SM

Daniel N. Hanson

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated October 1, 2008. The taxpayer, Daniel N. Hanson, is ordered to

obey the summons and ordered to appear on November 12, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. at

Suite 900, 1000 Elm Street, Manchester, New Hampshire, before Diane M. Saylor,

to give testimony and produce all books and records in his possession or control

required and called for by the terms of the summons of February 13, 2008. It is

further ordered that the government be awarded its costs.

SO ORDERED.

October 27, 2008 /s/Steven J. McAuliffe 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Daniel N. Hanson, pro se

Gretchen Leah Witt, AUSA

Case 1:08-mc-00044-SM Document 7 Filed 10/27/08 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 21
**MAJOR SUBSIDIARIES OF LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA INC.**
     The following indicates the corporate names (and all other significantnames, if any, under which business is conducted) and jurisdictions ofincorporation of the subsidiaries of Lafarge North America Inc., all of whichare wholly-owned or majority-owned. Indirect subsidiaries of Lafarge NorthAmerica are indented and listed following their direct parent corporations.                 Name(s) Jurisdiction of Incorporation      American Transport Leasing, Inc. Delaware  Cement Transport, Ltd. North Dakota  Friday Harbor Sand & Gravel Co. Washington  International Atlantins Insurance Company Vermont  Lafarge Dakota Inc. North Dakota  Lafarge Midwest, Inc. Delaware  Lafarge Presque Isle, Inc. Delaware  Mountain Prairie Insurance Company, Inc. Vermont  Redland Inc. Delaware      Lafarge Mid-Atlantic, Inc. Delaware      Lafarge West, Inc. Delaware        Lafarge Southwest, Inc. New Mexico  Sierra Bay Receivables Inc. Nevada  Systech Environmental Corporation Delaware  Lafarge Canada Inc. Canada      Gestion Carim Inc. Quebec      International Atlantins Agencies Inc. British Columbia      Johnson Concrete & Material Ltd. Saskatchewan      LCI-Warren Merger Inc. Canada          Lafarge Canada Finance Inc. Canada          The Warren Paving & Materials              Group Limited Ontario      Les sablières Forestville Inc. Quebec      Lulu Transport Inc. British Columbia      N C Rubber Products Inc. Ontario      Quality Ready-Mix Limited Ontario      Re-Wa Holdings Ltd. Alberta      Richvale York Block Inc. Ontario      Valley Rite-Mix Ltd. British Columbia  
     Lafarge North America also does business under the following names:Florida Portland Cement Company, Lafarge Construction Materials, LafargeGypsum, Trinity Portland Cement Company.
     Lafarge Canada Inc. also does business under the following names: AlbertaConcrete Products, Apex Gravel, Bestpipe, Canada Concrete, Capital Concrete,Challenge Concrete, Champion Concrete, Cinq Concrete, Coldstream Concrete,Columbia Concrete, Conmac Western Industries, Country Building Supplies, CrownEquipment, Crown Paving and Engineering, Duracon, Francon-Lafarge, Great LakesFlyash, High River Concrete, Johnston Ready Mix, Lafarge Concrete, LafargeConstruction Materials, Lafarge Gypsum, Lethbridge Concrete Products, MaritimeCement, Nelson Aggregate Co., O.K. Construction Materials, Permanent-Lafarge,Red-D-Mix Block, Richvale — McCord, Richvale — York, Rocky Mountain Precast,Spartan Explosives, Standard Aggregates, Standard Asphalt, Supercrete,Trans-Alta Flyash.
     Information regarding approximately 85 additional subsidiaries of theRegistrant has been omitted because such subsidiaries, considered in theaggregate as a single subsidiary, do not constitute a “significant subsidiary”as defined in Rule 1-02(v) of Regulation S-X [17 CFR 210.1-02(v)].

 

     Information regarding 86 additional subsidiaries of the Registrant hasbeen omitted because such subsidiaries, considered in the aggregate as a singlesubsidiary, do not constitute a “significant subsidiary” as defined in Rule1-02(v) of Regulation S-X [17 CFR 210.1-02(v)].
Tim Hendricks and Pat Hendricks,

Relators-Plaintiffs,

v.

CYRUS SORAT, HEALTH CARE

PHARMACY an unknown type ofbusiness entity, VICIS CAPITAL, LLC,MEDICAL SOLUTIONSMANAGEMENT, INC., DEUTSCHEMEDICAL SERVICES LLC,MDWERKS, INC., TOM VAN AUCKEN,HOWARD KATZ, CHRIS PHILLIPS,LOWELL FISHER, and PHYSICIANDEFENDANTS 1-208 NAMED ON

EXHIBIT A,

Defendants,

andGLOBAL HEALTHCARE RECOVERYSERVICES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CYRUSSORAT,DEUTSCHE

MEDICAL SERVICES LLC, AND TOMVAN AUCKEN,

Defendants.

FILED IN CAMERA & UNDER SEAL Pursuant to31 U.S.c. § 3720(b)(2) and Local Rule 83.11JUDGE DICLERICO
October 31,2012,

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. the Seal Order currently in place in this action shall be and is hereby vacated as to

all pleadings and orders other than those pleadings filed by the United States prior

to June 7,2012, and the court docket and the remaining pleadings and orders onfile in this case shall be unsealed; and

2. the time in which the Relators-Plaintiffs may serve their First Amended

Complaint shall be and is hereby enlarged up to and including October 31, 2012.

3.

SO ORDERED.This _ day of~~, 2012.

JOSEPH DiCLERICO

United States District Judge

2

1st May /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1740 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1740

  To repeal the wool and mohair subsidy provided in the Agriculture, 
 Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
                       Appropriations Act, 2001.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2001

  Mr. Weiner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To repeal the wool and mohair subsidy provided in the Agriculture, 
 Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
                       Appropriations Act, 2001.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF WOOL AND MOHAIR SUBSIDY.

    (a) Repeal.--Section 814 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
2001 (as enacted by Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-55), is 
repealed.
    (b) Effect of Repeal.--The repeal of such section 814 by subsection 
(a) shall not alter the validity of any payments made on or before the 
date of the enactment of this Act to producers of wool or producers of 
mohair for the 2000 marketing year under such section.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ana Delia DE PAZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-70286.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2003.*

Decided March 10, 2003.

*332Before T.G. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

De Paz challenges a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigrations Appeals on June 15, 2001. Specifically, De Paz asserts that the BIA violated her due process rights by issuing a decision before she filed a brief and before sending her a transcript of the hearing before the Immigration Judge. De Paz also asserts that she was denied effective assistance of counsel.

An alien “is entitled to a full and fair hearing of [her] claims and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on [her] behalf.” *Colmenar v. INS,*210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). The BIA violates an alien’s due process rights if a proceeding is “so fundamentally unfair that [an] alien [is] prevented from reasonably presenting [her] case.” *Id.*(quoting *Platero-Cortez v. INS,*804 F.2d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir.1986)). To prevail on a due process claim, an alien must “show prejudice, which means that the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.” *Id.*

De Paz asserts that she was prejudiced because the BIA decided the issues involved in her cases “without any significant input from [her].” De Paz, however, has not identified any information she would have presented to the BIA that was not before the BIA when it made its decision. Nor has De Paz explained how the outcome of her case would have been different in any way had the BIA sent her a transcript of the hearing before the IJ or had her counsel filed a brief before the BIA made its decision. De Paz, therefore, has failed to demonstrate that she suffered prejudice, and her due process claim fails. *Id.*

De Paz’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim also fails. De Paz did not raise her ineffective assistance of counsel claim before the BIA. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim. *Arreaza-Cruz v. INS,*39 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir.1994) (holding court lacks jurisdiction to consider ineffective assistance of counsel claim that was not presented to the BIA).

PETITION DENIED.

**

 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

Christopher Fournier

v. Civil No. 08-cv-338-JD

Warden, Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility

O R D E R

Christopher Fournier seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. After the warden filed a motion for summary

judgment, the court appointed counsel to represent Fournier due

to his lack of access to materials for legal research. On

November 17, 2009, Fournier’s appointed counsel filed a “Notice

of Motion and Affidavit in Support of a Motion to Grant Counsel

an Additional Thirty Days to Submit a Response to Respondent’s

Motion for Summary Judgment” in which counsel stated that he

would file a motion “at a date and time convenient for the

court.” To date, no motion for an extension of time has been

filed. The warden has not responded to the “notice.”

The court deems the notice to be a motion for an extension

of time to file a response to the warden’s motion for summary

judgment. The request is granted.

Case 1:08-cv-00338-JD Document 42 Filed 12/10/09 Page 1 of 2
2

Conclusion

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

extension of time (document no. 40) is granted. The plaintiff

shall file his response to the defendant’s motion for summary

judgment on or before January 11, 2010.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

December 10, 2009

cc: Harry C. Batchelder, Jr., Esquire

Stephen D. Fuller, Esquire

Elizabeth C. Woodcock, Esquire

Case 1:08-cv-00338-JD Document 42 Filed 12/10/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

George Tsiatsios

v. Civil Action No. 07-cv-03-JM

Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

O R D E R

Defendant’s motion seeks Rule 37 sanctions. Plaintiff has

not had an opportunity to respond. Nevertheless, defendant is

clearly entitled at this time to partial relief. The discovery

deadline is extended to permit the deposition after the documents

ordered produced are provided. Additional sanctions will be

considered after plaintiff’s response.

The motion (document no. 18) is granted in part and deferred

in part.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 29, 2007

cc: Michael J. Sheehan, Esq.

Arthur G. Telegen, Esq.

Lawrence S. Smith, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00003-JL Document 20 Filed 10/29/07 Page 1 of 1
#### Tri-State Environmental Contracting, Inc., Respondent, v M.H. Kane Construction, Inc., Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 368]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marian Lewis, Special Ref.), entered November 19, 2004, which directed the entry of judgment for plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $330,255.38 with interest from January 1, 2000, and costs and disbursements, and judgment, same court, entered December 3, 2004, which awarded plaintiff recovery from defendant in the total amount of $477,736.58, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, defendant’s motion for vacatur granted, the judgment vacated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

The motion court improvidently exercised its discretion by denying defendant’s well-grounded motion to vacate its default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) *(see Goldman v Cotter,*10 AD3d 289 [2004]). Defendant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the default, entered by the court sua sponte on the one occasion that defendant failed to appear, with candid, detailed and uncontroverted allegations of law office failure. The four-month delay in seeking vacatur was well within the statutory time limit and was not unreasonable, given defendant’s demonstrated intention to pursue the litigation, which had reached the stage of jury selection, and the absence of willful delay or a pattern of neglect either pre or postdefault. The prejudice alleged by plaintiff was mere conclusory conjecture, since no supporting evidence was submitted on this issue and the witness in question was apparently available *(see Werner v Tiffany & Co.,*291 AD2d 305 [2002]). Defendant also made the requisite prima facie showing of a meritorious defense to plaintiff’s account stated claim, by specifying instances where plaintiffs performance of work was allegedly unauthorized or poorly performed resulting in defendant suffering damages *(see Tat Sang Kwong*
      *437
      *v Budge-Wood, Laundry Serv.,*97 AD2d 691 [1983]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.