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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

DILLON M. SALVO,

Defendants.

8:23CR119

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for a Status Conference. 

(Filing No. 45). The motion is unopposed by the government. For good cause shown, the Court finds 

the motion should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for a Status Conference, (Filing No. 45), is granted.

2) In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Court finds that the ends of justice 

will be served by granting this motion and outweigh the interests of the public and the 

defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result of the granting of 

this motion, that is, the time between today’s date and on February 5, 2024, shall be 

deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the 

Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant this motion would deny counsel the reasonable time 

necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, 

and the novelty and complexity of the case. The failure to grant this motion might result 

in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B). Failing to timely object 

to this order as provided under this court’s local rules will be deemed a waiver of any 

right to later claim the time should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act.

3) A telephonic status conference with counsel will be held before the undersigned 

magistrate judge at 3:30 p.m. on February 5, 2024. Counsel for the parties shall use the 

conferencing instructions provided by the Court to participate in the call.

4) The trial of this case is continued pending further order of the Court.

Dated this 7th day of December, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00119-BCB-MDN Doc # 46 Filed: 12/07/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 83
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22479]



[[Page 55201]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Fifth Meeting--RTCA Special Committee 217/EUROCAE WG 44--Airport 
Mapping Databases

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 217 meeting: Airport Mapping 
Databases.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 217 meeting: Airport Mapping 
Databases.

DATES: The meeting will be held on October 21-23, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 
5 p.m.

ADDRESS: The meeting will be held at Novotel-Airport Hotel, Zurich, 
Switzerland.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036-5133; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax 
(202) 833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org. Or Andreas Paul of 
Lufthansa Systems FlightNav, Tel: 32-2-729 3194, Fax: 32-2-729 9008.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given for a Special Committee 217 meeting. The agenda will 
include:

21 October

    <bullet> Opening Plenary
     <bullet> Chairmen's remarks and introductions
     <bullet> Review and approve meeting agenda
     <bullet> Discussion
     <bullet> Schedule for this week
     <bullet> Schedule for next meetings
     <bullet> Presentations
    <bullet> Presentations
     <bullet> Report of September Telecon--Jens Schiefele
     <bullet> Additional AMDB Requirements Related to D-Taxi Datalink 
and Runway Safety--Sam van der Stricht and Christian Bousmanne
    <bullet> Meet to revise documents

22 October

    <bullet> Plenary Session

23 October--Thursday

    <bullet> Closing Plenary Session
    <bullet> Other Business
    <bullet> Determine and agree on action plan
    <bullet> Meeting Plans and Dates
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section. Members of the public 
may present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 17, 2008.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
 [FR Doc. E8-22479 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

Carol A . Grant

V .

Town of Atkinson, et al .

Civil No . 07-cv-30-JL

ORDER

Re : Document No . 41, Motion to Compel Attorney Pandolph to

Cease Obstruction of Discovery and Motion to Produce Subpoen a

Ruling : Denied without prejudice . Plaintiff's counsel's reply

to Lucent's objection is completely inappropriate and unacceptable

in both tone and content . Rather than hold a show cause hearing as

to why sanctions should not be imposed against plaintiff and

plaintiff's counsel, the motion to compel is denied without

prejudice to the filing of a clear, concise motion for relief, free

of accusations and other unhelpful characterizations of counsel for

Lucent .

/s/ Joseph N . Laplante

Joseph N . Laplante

U .S . District Judge

Date : March 5, 200 8

cc : Anthony Rozzi, Esq .

Garry Lane, Esq .

Daniel Schwarz, Esq .

William Pandolph, Esq .

Case 1:07-cv-00030-JL Document 50 Filed 03/05/08 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Kevin T. Michaels, Chief Financial Officer of Powerwave
Technologies, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2012 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                      |  |     |  |                                                                       
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 10, 2012 |  | By: |  | /s/ KEVIN T. MICHAELS                                                 
|                      |  |     |  | Kevin T. Michaels Chief Financial Officer Powerwave Technologies,
Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 07-cr-148-01-SM

Eric L. Savage

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 10) is

granted. Trial has been rescheduled for the December 2007 trial period. Defendant

shall file a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than August 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

the defendant the reasonable time 

Case 1:07-cr-00148-SM Document 11 Filed 08/27/07 Page 1 of 2
2

necessary for effective preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence

under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: November 20, 2007 at 4:00 PM

Jury Selection: December 4, 2007 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

August 27, 2007 /s/ Steven J. McAuliffe _____________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Clyde Garrigan, Esq.

 Andrew Schulman, Esq.

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00148-SM Document 11 Filed 08/27/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-77-PB

Kevin Corbin

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

October 10, 2007 trial in the above case, citing complex issues

and the need for additional time to complete discovery and

prepare for trial. 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 October 10, 2007 to February 5, 2008. 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

Case 1:07-cr-00077-PB Document 16 Filed 09/21/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The September 24, 2007 final pretrial conference is

continued to January 28, 2008 at 4:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 20, 2007

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Robert Kinsella, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00077-PB Document 16 Filed 09/21/07 Page 2 of 2
#### Larry Clemons, as Administrator of the Estate of Jennifer Clemons, Deceased, Appellant, v Roslynn Glicksman, M.D., et al., Respondents.

[808 NYS2d 663]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered April 25, 2005, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiffs motion to renew an earlier order of the same court and Justice, entered November 8, 2004, and to preclude the deposition of Dr. Rudelli, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While “new facts” existed to support a motion for renewal, viz., Dr. Rudelli’s alleged retention as an expert by plaintiff, this retention would not “change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]) since an expert may always be deposed “upon a showing of special circumstances” (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [iii]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
---

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable 
(CSV) format contain all available historical data.

|Section B
Selected Statistics from the Quarterly Reports of Condition of Commercial Banks  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|
|B.1. Farm Debt Outstanding at Commercial Banks                                              
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                                                
|B.2. Delinquent Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks                 
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                                                
|B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks         
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|B.4. Delinquent Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks                     
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                                                
|B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks             
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|                                                                                            
|
|B.6. Distribution of Agricultural Banks by Share of Their Total Loans that are Nonperforming
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                                                
|B.7. Selected Measures of Financial Performance of Agricultural and Other Small Banks       
|ASCII (6 KB)                                                                                
|B.8. Average Loan-Deposit Ratios at Agricultural Banks in Selected Federal Reserve Districts
|ASCII (10 KB)                                                                               
|B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures                                                   
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|                                                                                            

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: September 30, 2004
42

C.7. Local Trends in Farm Income and Expenditures as Reported by Banks in Each RegionPercent

Farm income Farm household spending Farm capital sp

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same 

Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2000: Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.

 Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.

2001: Q1... 38 43 20 21 67 13 45 4

 Q2... 35 47 18 22 69 9 50 4

 Q3... 28 59 13 16 75 9 38 5

 Q4... 49 39 12 29 64 7 57 3

2002: Q1... 8 32 60 16 63 21 10 3

 Q2... 58 41 2 19 68 12 49 4

 Q3... 58 33 9 34 60 6 55 4

 Q4... 48 22 30 27 56 17 46 3

2003: Q1... 52 27 20 30 52 18 53 3

 Q2... 28 50 22 19 65 16 34 5

Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2000: Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.

 Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.

2001: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.

 Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.

 Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.

 Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.

2002: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.

 Q2... 65 33 2 35 54 11 63 3

 Q3... 70 27 3 33 56 11 65 3

 Q4... 63 30 8 40 50 9 65 3

2003: Q1... 72 24 5 44 48 8 68 3

 Q2... 36 47 17 27 60 13 46 4

 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. n.a. Not available. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
#### CALICE v. KARSTENDIEK.

No. 16199.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 22, 1936.

George M. Brooks, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Fred G. Veith, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit by a tenant against her landlord for damages for physical injuries alleged to have been sustained as a result of a fall said to have been caused by a defective step. The damages asked amount to $3,120.50.

From a judgment denying plaintiff's claim, she has appealed.

The case turns upon a question of fact. The evidence convinces us that plaintiff fell and injured herself, though not to the extent claimed, for we believe her injuries are grossly exaggerated in her petition. There is, however, no doubt in our minds that she was injured by a fall while a tenant of the defendant and on the leased premises. There is, however, no satisfactory proof of her fall being due to the defective condition of the leased premises. Her testimony is most unsatisfactory and it stands alone so far as the manner in which the accident happened, is concerned, for while there are other witnesses who testify concerning the aftermath of the fall, no witness saw the occurrence. Plaintiff, at first, attributed her fall to the defective condition of the kitchen steps which were proven to have been in good condition and later to the bathroom steps which were broken. An agent of the defendant testified that she told him she had slipped on the steps.

She claims to have been bedridden for six weeks after the accident while her physician testified that, though incapacitated, she was not confined to her bed. Harry Karstendiek testified that during the six weeks she claimed to have been bedridden, he had often called on her and that she was frequently out of bed and, on one occasion, out of the house.

On the whole, the case from plaintiff’s standpoint has not been proven with legal certainty. It is a case peculiarly yvithin the familiar rule concerning the effect to be given a judgment by a trial court based upon a question of fact.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
B.4. Delinquent Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Share of outstanding farm real estate

Volume (billions of dollars) loans (percent)

Nonperforming Nonperforming 

Past due Past due

30 to 89 Past due 30 to 89 Past due

days, 90 days, Non- days, 90 days, NonPeriod Total accruing Total accruing accruing Total accuring Total accruing accruing

1993...... .5 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 .9 1.5 .5 1.1

1994...... .5 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 1.0 1.4 .5 .9

1995...... .6 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 1.0 1.4 .5 .9

1996...... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.8 1.1 1.7 .7 1.0

1997...... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.6 1.1 1.5 .6 .9

1998...... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.9 1.2 1.7 .8 1.0

1999...... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.0 .8 1.3 .5 .7

2000...... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .9 1.4 .6 .8

2001...... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.6 1.1 1.5 .3 1.2

2002...... .9 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.5 1.0 1.5 .3 1.2

2003...... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 2.1 .7 1.3 .2 1.1

1994: Q4... .5 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 1.0 1.4 .5 .9

1995: Q1... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 3.1 1.3 1.8 .7 1.0

 Q2... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.6 .9 1.6 .7 1.0

 Q3... .6 .2 .4 .1 .2 2.4 .9 1.6 .6 .9

 Q4... .6 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 1.0 1.4 .5 .9

1996: Q1... .9 .4 .5 .2 .3 3.7 1.6 2.1 1.0 1.2

 Q2... .7 .3 .5 .2 .3 3.0 1.1 1.9 .9 1.0

 Q3... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.6 .9 1.7 .7 1.0

 Q4... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.8 1.1 1.7 .7 1.0

1997: Q1... .8 .4 .4 .2 .2 3.2 1.4 1.8 .8 1.0

 Q2... .7 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.8 1.0 1.8 .8 1.0

 Q3... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.3 .8 1.4 .6 .8

 Q4... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.6 1.1 1.5 .6 .9

1998: Q1... .9 .4 .5 .2 .3 3.5 1.6 1.9 .9 1.0

 Q2... .7 .3 .5 .2 .2 2.6 1.0 1.6 .8 .8

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.5 .9 1.6 .7 .9

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.9 1.2 1.7 .8 1.0

1999: Q1... 1.1 .5 .6 .3 .3 3.6 1.6 2.0 .9 1.0

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.7 1.0 1.7 .8 .9

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .8 1.5 .7 .8

 Q4... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.0 .8 1.3 .5 .7

2000: Q1... 1.0 .4 .6 .3 .3 3.2 1.3 1.9 .9 1.0

 Q2... .9 .3 .6 .3 .3 2.7 1.0 1.7 .7 1.0

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .2 .3 2.1 .7 1.4 .6 .8

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .9 1.4 .6 .8

2001: Q1... 1.1 .6 .5 .1 .4 3.2 1.7 1.4 .4 1.1

 Q2... .9 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.7 1.0 1.7 .4 1.2

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .4 2.5 .9 1.7 .4 1.3

 Q4... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.6 1.1 1.5 .3 1.2

2002: Q1... 1.2 .6 .6 .2 .4 3.3 1.6 1.7 .5 1.2

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .6 .2 .4 2.6 1.0 1.6 .4 1.1

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.4 .9 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q4... .9 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.5 1.0 1.5 .3 1.2

2003: Q1... 1.2 .6 .6 .1 .5 3.2 1.6 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .7 .2 .5 2.6 .9 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.3 .7 1.5 .3 1.2

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 2.1 .7 1.3 .2 1.1

 Note. Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

24
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Garrol Jones, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 885]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered May 20, 2003, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (five counts) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds (five counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly determined that the photographic and showup identifications of the defendant by the undercover officer were confirmatory in nature and that the defendant was not entitled to a *Wade*hearing *(see United States v Wade,*388 US 218 [1967]; *People v Wharton,*74 NY2d 921 [1989]; *People v Quinones,*292 AD2d 239 [2002]; *see also People v Smith,*293 AD2d 764 [2002]; *cf. People v Rodriguez,*79 NY2d 445 [1992]).

We decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to dismiss the non-inclusory concurrent counts of the indictment *(see People v Johnson,*297 AD2d 822 [2002]; *People v Ramos,*15 AD3d 236 [2005]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Cozier, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
```
      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 98-1494

                          UNITED STATES,

                            Appellee,

                                v.

                       JOSE PERDOMO-FELIS,

                      Defendant, Appellant.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

        [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                     Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                 Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                
                                

     Joseph C. Laws, Jr., Federal Public Defender, and Edgardo
Rodriguez-Quilichini, Assistant Federal Public Defender, on brief
for appellant.
     Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles-
Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, and Camille Velez-Rive,
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
     

January 5, 1999

                                
                                
     Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and record, we
reject defendant's claim of disparate sentencing.  Whether or not
his co-defendants' sentences reflected proper application of the
sentencing guidelines, defendant's own sentence correctly was
enhanced under U.S.S.G. � 2D1.1(b)(1).  See United States v. Mena
Robles, 4 F.3d 1026, 1035-36 (1st Cir. 1993).  "The guidelines do
not require the sentencing court to consider related cases or to
justify a sentence in terms of the punishment meted out to
co-defendants."  United States v. Font-Ramirez, 944 F.2d 42, 50
(1st Cir. 1991).
     Defendant's motion to dispense with oral argument is granted. 
     Judgment and sentence affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.

                               -2-
```