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. 07-cr-12-01-SM

Da Van Ha

O R D E R

Defendant Ha’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial is

granted (document 22). Trial has been rescheduled for the November 2007

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

than August 6, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, this 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: October 29, 2007 at 2:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: November 6, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00012-SM Document 28 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

July 23, 2007

cc: Philip R. Desfosses, Esq.

Jennifer C. Davis, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00012-SM Document 28 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Frederick Alston, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[807 NYS2d 202]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

During a review of inmate correspondence, a correction officer found a letter written by petitioner to his brother, who was housed in another correctional facility, in which he stated his intent to kill an informant and another person, and enlisted his brother’s help. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with making threats and violating facility correspondence procedures. He was found guilty of the charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was upheld on administrative appeal, with a reduction in the penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the letter written by petitioner, as well as petitioner’s admission that he authored the letter, constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Surdis v Walsh,*295 AD2d 735, 736 [2002]; *Matter of Burgess v Goord,*269 AD2d 722, 722-723 [2000]). Petitioner’s assertion that the threats were not real and that he was only joking with his brother presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Wright v Goord,*19 AD3d 855, 855 [2005], *lv denied*5 *853NY3d 711 [2005]; *Matter of Moore v Goord,*16 AD3d 800, 800 [2005]). Finally, given that petitioner was not illiterate, non-English speaking, sensorially disabled, charged with drug use or confined pending the hearing, he was not entitled to an employee assistant pursuant to 7 NYCRR 251-4.1 (a) *(see Matter of Miller v Goord,*2 AD3d 928, 929 [2003]; *Matter of Santiago v Selsky,*288 AD2d 732 [2001]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### Daniel HANIC, Appellant, v. Dr. SCHAEFFER, individually and in official capacity, Appellee.

No. 02-3346.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 18, 2003.

Decided Feb. 26, 2003.

*666Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

South Dakota inmate Daniel Hanic appeals the District Court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. As relevant to this appeal, Hanic sued Dr. James Schaeffer, the physician who treated him after he sustained an ankle injury in February 1996. He claimed Dr. Schaeffer had been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need because Dr. Schaeffer should have recognized, and initiated appropriate treatment for, deep vein thrombosis (DVT).2 Having carefully reviewed the record, *see Beck v. Skon,*253 F.3d 330, 332-33 (8th Cir.2001), we affirm.

We agree with the District Court that Hanic failed to create a triable issue as to whether Dr. Schaeffer knew he had DVT, or was developing DVT, yet ignored it. *See Roberson v. Bradshaw,*198 F.3d 645, 647 (8th Cir.1999) (stating elements of deliberate-indifference claim). According to Hanic’s affidavit, when Dr. Schaeffer last saw him on March 14, 1996, for his ankle, it was discolored but the swelling had decreased somewhat. At that point, because Hanic’s symptoms had not entirely resolved since his original ankle injury, Dr. Schaeffer referred him to the medical director for approval of an orthopedic consult. Hanic further attested that on March 17, three days later, his entire leg became severely swollen and blue, and that a nurse (not Dr. Schaeffer) observed, but ignored the change in his condition.

In resisting summary judgment, Hanic offered only his opinion that he exhibited obvious signs of DVT when Dr. Schaeffer last assessed him. Hanic did not offer any expert testimony that he had or was developing DVT when he last saw Dr. Schaeffer. Therefore, we agree with the District Court that Hanic’s opinion was an inadequate response to Dr. Schaeffer’s testimony and attestations about the causes, symptoms, and diagnosis of DVT, and what he observed when he last saw Hanic on March 14, 1996. *See Robinson v. Hager,*292 F.3d 560, 564 (8th Cir.2002) (holding reasonable juror could not infer from evidence whether inmate’s lapse in being prescribed hypertension medication caused stroke; when injury is sophisticated, cau*667sation generally must be shown by expert testimony). As a matter of law, Hanic has failed to create a prima facie case of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, and summary judgment was correctly granted in favor of Dr. Schaeffer.

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.

2

. Because Hanic does not argue on appeal that the District Court erroneously granted summary judgment on his claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, we deem those claims abandoned. *See Carter v. Chrysler Corp.,*173 F.3d 693, 699 (8th Cir. 1999).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-77-01-SM

Scott Richard

O R D E R

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

trial is granted (document 12). Trial has been rescheduled for the Janaury 

2009 trial period. Defendant Richard shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than November 3, 2008. 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: January 9, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: January 21, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:08-cr-00077-SM Document 13 Filed 10/21/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

October 21, 2008

cc: Jessica Brown, Esq.

Arnold Huftalen, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00077-SM Document 13 Filed 10/21/08 Page 2 of 2
14

A.9. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Size of Loan, August 2-6, 2Percent except as noted

$1,000 to $10,000 to $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 t

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,999 $24,999 $49,999 $99,999 $249,999 Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 853,742 32,796 49,143 55,516 74,019 138,85Number of loans 16,825 9,033 3,432 1,676 1,148 93Weighted average maturity (months)1 16.53 9.47 9.94 10.37 9.89 18.9

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 6.25 2.07 2.85 3.32 3.82 6.0

Weighted average risk rating3 3.15 3.08 3.12 3.07 3.18 3.0

Weighted average interest rate4 5.12 6.23 5.97 5.49 5.23 4.9

 Standard error5 .10 .21 .23 .17 .15 .1 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 5.64 7.23 6.98 6.37 6.14 5.8 25th percentile 4.33 5.35 4.85 4.55 4.33 4.3 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 5.07 6.11 6.01 5.75 5.57 4.8 Other livestock 4.81 5.75 6.14 5.83 4.61 5.2 Other current operating expenses7 5.29 6.35 6.06 5.60 5.46 4.9

 Farm machinery and equipment 5.07 5.93 5.87 5.44 5.10 4.8 Farm real estate 5.42 6.42 6.42 5.37 6.49 6.4 Other8 5.06 5.36 5.35 4.79 4.73 4.3

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 85.64 82.72 82.63 78.52 78.11 83.5 Under commitment 81.77 88.32 83.51 75.01 80.10 75.2 Callable 19.83 28.92 26.49 33.92 27.92 28.3 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.56 4.24 4.85 6.72 9.15 11.2 Other livestock 10.97 2.31 3.79 7.31 13.94 13.1 Other current operating expenses7 32.56 78.05 69.46 59.21 44.35 38.2

 Farm machinery and equipment 9.23 8.09 7.77 9.51 10.82 12.5 Farm real estate 4.70 1.39 2.12 2.99 4.22 5.8 Other8 38.00 5.93 12.03 14.26 17.52 18.9

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 10.20 3.64 6.31 7.17 6.70 15.6 Other 84.46 89.30 84.85 86.26 83.37 75.0 Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 11



                   Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund
              Schedule of Computation of Earnings Per Common Share
                                 For the Periods

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         April 1, 2001    January 1, 2001
                                                            through           Through
                                                         June 30, 2001     June 30, 2001
                                                         -------------     -------------
                                                          (unaudited)       (unaudited)
<S>                                                      <C>               <C>
Net Income (Loss)                                        $  (1,425,379)    $  (1,303,901)
                                                         =============     =============

Weighted Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding
                                                             4,224,870         4,214,141
                                                         =============     =============

Earnings (Loss) per Common Share                         $       (0.34)    $       (0.31)
                                                         =============     =============


                                                         April 1, 2000    January 1, 2000
                                                            through           Through
                                                         June 30, 2000     June 30, 2000
                                                         -------------     -------------
                                                          (unaudited)       (unaudited)

Net Income                                               $      21,486     $      28,010
                                                         =============     =============

Weighted Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding
                                                             4,239,072         4,059,716
                                                         =============     =============

Earnings per Common Share                                $        0.01     $        0.01
                                                         =============     =============
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-49-PB

Michael Cecchetti

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

October 7, 2008 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to engage in plea negotiations. The government

does not object to a continuance of the trial.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from October 7, 2008 to January 6, 2009. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

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

The September 25, 2008 final pretrial conference is

continued to December 22, 2008 at 3:30 p.m.

Case 1:08-cr-00049-PB Document 12 Filed 09/25/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 25, 2008

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Clyde Garrigan, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00049-PB Document 12 Filed 09/25/08 Page 2 of 2
IIB

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1748

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 13, 2002

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

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 805 Glen Burnie Road in Richmond, Virginia,

as the ‘‘Tom Bliley Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1748 RFS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 805 Glen Burnie Road in Richmond, Virginia,

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Tom Bliley Post

5 Office Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

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

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

10 to the ‘‘Tom Bliley Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives February 12,

2002.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Media Sciences International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), the undersigned, Kevan D. Bloomgren, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

| (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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

 

 

| /s/ Kevan D. Bloomgren |
|------------------------|

Kevan D. Bloomgren

Chief Financial Officer

Date:  February 14, 2008

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
15

A.10. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders, by Size of LoaPercent except as noted

$1,000 to $10,000 to $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 t

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,999 $24,999 $49,999 $99,999 $249,999 Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 474,112 20,123 49,667 62,483 59,904 80,66Number of loans 10,536 3,681 3,303 1,760 910 51Weighted average maturity (months)1 27.99 8.50 11.68 16.11 29.82 37.0

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 15.21 5.33 6.57 12.49 20.62 14.2

Weighted average risk rating3 2.37 2.39 2.17 2.21 2.32 1.9

Weighted average interest rate4 8.36 9.04 8.75 8.82 8.71 8.6

 Standard error5 .17 .14 .08 .12 .18 .1

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 9.01 9.56 9.26 9.35 9.45 9.1 25th percentile 7.63 8.34 8.38 8.49 8.19 8.4 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 8.79 8.39 8.20 8.98 9.24 8.5 Other livestock 8.50 10.33 8.90 9.35 9.13 9.2 Other current operating expenses7 8.27 8.86 8.71 8.62 8.71 8.9

 Farm machinery and equipment 8.78 9.56 8.77 8.52 8.65 9.2 Farm real estate 7.35 n.a. 8.84 7.75 7.53 7.2 Other8 8.87 8.84 9.34 8.68 9.03 n.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 34.86 40.13 35.43 29.66 32.30 39.1 Under commitment 54.81 63.08 65.87 50.98 38.36 31.8 Callable 23.26 26.90 18.05 17.51 16.36 19.5 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 21.54 10.15 4.67 3.54 7.56 28.6 Other livestock 19.13 10.64 21.85 26.93 20.02 14.4 Other current operating expenses7 43.02 68.46 57.08 51.32 52.75 38.0

 Farm machinery and equipment 4.34 9.97 13.98 11.39 5.02 1.8 Farm real estate 10.49 n.a. .63 .67 11.06 17.0 Other8 1.48 .78 1.78 6.15 3.58 n.

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 22.75 3.27 6.62 6.02 16.31 19.4 Other 73.91 89.53 86.86 86.80 75.68 78.3 Note. Most small and mid-sized farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had less than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
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

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

2006...... n.a. 9 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. .018 n.a. n.a. n.a.

 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.
IB

Union Calendar No. 111

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2048

[Report No. 107–189]

To require a report on the operations of the State Justice Institute.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 5, 2001

Mr. COBLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

AUGUST 2, 2001

Additional sponsor: Mr. CONYERS

AUGUST 2, 2001

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To require a report on the operations of the State Justice

Institute.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2048 RH

1 SECTION 1. REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL ON STATE

2 JUSTICE INSTITUTE.

3 Section 213 of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984

4 (42 U.S.C. 10712) is amended by striking ‘‘On October

5 1, 1987’’ and inserting ‘‘Not later than October 1, 2002’’.

Union Calendar No. 111

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2048

[Report No. 107–189]

A BILL

To require a report on the operations of the State

Justice Institute.

AUGUST 2, 2001

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
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**

 

I, Jeffrey J. Guzy, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CoJax Oil and Gas Corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

the Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2019 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.
#### Ex parte Harvey James McMILLAN.

No. 45830.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

July 12, 1972.

*641No attorney on appeal.

Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DALLY, Commissioner.

This appeal is from an order in a ha-beas corpus proceeding remanding appellant to custody for extradition to the State of South Dakota.

At the habeas corpus hearing the Executive Warrant of the Honorable Preston Smith, Governor of the State of Texas, was introduced, along with all of the supporting papers.

The appellant, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he and his mother had lived in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in early January of 1971. He was not certain of the date but he had left the State of South Dakota with his mother to join his father, who was in the military service in El Paso, prior to the 16th day of January, 1971, the date on which it was alleged the offense occurred.

It is the appellant’s contention that he should not be remanded for extradition because he was not in the State of South Dakota on the date alleged to have been the day the crime was committed and for the additional reasons that he is not charged by a “proper accusation” and the evidence would not show an act which would be a violation of the laws of the State of South Dakota.

The appellant’s testimony that he was not in the demanding state on the date of the alleged offense is insufficient to overcome the prima facie case established by the Governor’s Warrant that he was in fact the same individual sought by the South Dakota authorities and that he was in the demanding state at the time the offense was alleged to have been committed. Ex Parte Binette, 465 S.W.2d 373 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Ex Parte Harvey, 459 S.W.2d 853 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Ex Parte Sutton, 455 S.W.2d 274 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Ex Parte Buel, 468 S.W.2d 385 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); and Delgado v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 52, 252 S.W.2d 935 (1952).

In an extradition proceeding the Texas courts are not called upon to decide whether or not the demanding state may prosecute the accused on the basis of the supporting papers standing alone. Ex Parte Beckham, 468 S.W.2d 446 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Ex Parte Posey, 453 S.W.2d 833 (Tex.Cr.App.1970) and Ex Parte Clubb, 447 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). The guilt or innocence of the appellant is not an issue to be determined in the asylum state in extradition proceedings. Ex Parte Bacquet, 469 S.W.2d 578 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Ex Parte Sutton, *supra.*

The Executive Warrant introduced in the proceedings appearing to be regular, the order remanding appellant to custody for extradition is affirmed.

*642No motion for rehearing will be entertained or filed with the clerk without leave of the court first being obtained after good cause has been shown.

Opinion approved by the Court.