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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Carl Statchen

v. Civil No. 08-cv-128-JD

Jason M. Palmer, et al.

O R D E R

Carl Statchen brought a civil rights action, alleging that

Concord police officers used unreasonable force in arresting him

and while he was held in custody. The officers, Jason M. Palmer

and Dick A. Scott, and the City of Concord moved for summary

judgment. Statchen filed an objection with documentary support. 

The defendants move to strike four of the exhibits Statchen filed

with his objection on the ground that they do not meet the

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e). Statchen,

who is represented by counsel, failed to file a response to the

motion to strike.

Discussion

With his objection to summary judgment, Statchen filed a

form showing a statement made by Emily Chartier, excerpts from

his deposition, photographs, a form from Midstate Medical Center

identified as an xray report, and an interoffice memorandum from

the Concord Police Department. The defendants challenge the

Case 1:08-cv-00128-JD Document 18 Filed 09/03/09 Page 1 of 3
2

Chartier statement, the photographs, the xray report, and the

police memorandum as not meeting the requirements of Rule 56(e).

Rule 56(e) requires that “[w]hen a motion for summary

judgment is properly made and supported, an opposing party may

not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own pleadings;

rather, its response must--by affidavits or as otherwise provided

in this rule--set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for

trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). Affidavits must be based on

the affiant’s personal knowledge, set out admissible facts, and

show that the affiant is competent to testify to the facts

stated. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(1). Affidavits may also be

supplemented with depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

additional affidavits. Id. 

An affidavit is a sworn written statement made under oath or

affirmation, but a declaration that meets the requirements of 28

U.S.C. § 1746, may be substituted. Elder-Keep v. Aksamit, 460

F.3d 979, 984 (8th Cir. 2006). In addition, “[t]o be admissible

at the summary judgment stage, documents must be authenticated by

and attached to an affidavit that meets the requirements of Rule

56(e).” Carmona v. Toledo, 215 F.3d 124, 131 (1st Cir. 2000)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

The defendants are correct that Chartier’s statement is

unsworn and that no affidavit supports the documentary evidence

Case 1:08-cv-00128-JD Document 18 Filed 09/03/09 Page 2 of 3
3

of the photographs, the xray report, or the interoffice

memorandum. Therefore, the challenged evidence does not meet the

requirements of Rule 56(e) and cannot be considered for purposes

of opposing summary judgment.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to strike

(document no. 17) is granted.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

September 3, 2009

cc: Charles P. Bauer, Esquire

Jeanne P. Herrick, Esquire

Michael J. Sheehan, Esquire

Case 1:08-cv-00128-JD Document 18 Filed 09/03/09 Page 3 of 3
#### In the Matter of Michael Horton, Petitioner, v Michael J. Allard, as Superintendent of Franklin Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[810 NYS2d 226]

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

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with conspiring to introduce narcotics and soliciting others to smuggle items into the correctional facility. The misbehavior report relates that petitioner’s girlfriend was arrested when attempting to *1049visit petitioner while in possession of marihuana. The girlfriend admitted that on several occasions petitioner had solicited her to smuggle marihuana, obtained from petitioner’s sister, into the correctional facility during visits. Following a disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of both charges and, other than a modification of the penalty imposed, the determination was upheld on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

The misbehavior report, supporting documentation, testimony at the hearing and the confidential information provided by the correction officer investigating the incident provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Riley v Goord,*22 AD3d 925 [2005]; *Matter of Lopez v Goord,*20 AD3d 836 [2005]; *Matter of Simpson v Goord,*308 AD2d 641, 642 [2003], *lv denied 2*NY3d 704 [2004]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the record establishes that the hearing officer, having personally interviewed the investigating officer, assessed the reliability and credibility of the information provided (see *Matter of Calhoun v Goord,*20 AD3d 628, 629 [2005]; *Matter of Johnson v Goord,*7 AD3d 863, 864 [2004]). To the extent that petitioner challenges the foundation for the reliance on the positive drug test results, the issue is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as petitioner raises the issue for the first time in this proceeding *(see Matter of Beckles v Selsky,*273 AD2d 584, 585 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 764 [2000]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

United States of America

V .

Jacauie P . Vieira

Criminal No . 05-cr-214-01-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no .

40) filed by defendant is granted .

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days . 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) , for the

reasons set forth in the motion .

SO ORDERED .

/s/ Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

United States District Judge

Date : May 16, 200 8

cc : Michael Sheehan, Esq .

Mark Zuckerman, Esq .

U .S . Marsha l

U .S . Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00214-JD Document 41 Filed 05/16/08 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:05-cv-00109-PB Document 76 Filed 08/26/05 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10377 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ADRIUM CLARK,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:01-CR-177-2-A

-------------------- January 8, 2003

Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Adrium Clark appeals his 438-month sentence from his guiltyplea conviction for one count of bank robbery and two counts of

using or carrying a firearm in connection with a crime of violence.

Clark argues that the district court’s imposition o f consecutive

sentence terms is grossly disproportionate to his offenses and

constitutes cruel and u nusual punishment under the Eighth

Amendment. Clark raises this argument for the first time onNo. 02-10377 -2-

appeal. Therefore, it is reviewed for plain error. S ee United

States v. Vital , 68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 1995).

When evaluating an Eighth Amendment proportionality challenge,

this court makes a threshold comparison between the gravity of the

charged offense and the severity of the sentence. S ee McGruder v.

Puckett , 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir. 1992) . Only if the sentence

is grossly disproportionate to the offense does the court go on to

compare the sentence at issue with (1) sentences imposed for other

crimes in the same jurisdiction and (2) sentences imposed for the

same crime in other jurisdictions. Id.

The statutes under which Clark pleaded guilty mandated

consecutive terms of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D),

(c)(1)(A)(i). The record contains an extensive history of violent

crimes committed by Clark. S ee McGruder

, 954 F.3d at 317.

Accordingly, his statutorily-mandated sentence was not grossly

disproportionate to his offenses. T he judgment and sentence of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
---

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

|Summary Charts                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|PDF (11 KB)                                                           
|                                                                      
|
|                                                                      
|A.1. Number of Non-real-estate Bank Loans                             
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.2. Average Size of Non-real-estate Bank Loans                       
|ASCII (6 KB)                                                          
|A.3. Volume of Non-real-estate Bank Loans                             
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.4. Average Maturity of Non-real-estate Bank Loans                   
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.5. Average Effective Interest Rate on Non-real-estate Bank          
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest Rate
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.7. Distribution of Dollar Amount of Non-real-estate Farm Loans      
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.8. All Banks, by Size of Loan                                       
|ASCII (7 KB)                                                          
|A.9. Large Farm Lenders, by Size of Loan                              
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                          
|A.10. Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders                                
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                          
|A.11. All Banks, by Risk Rating                                       
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                          
|A.12. Large Farm Lenders                                              
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.13. Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders                                
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.14. Regional Disaggregation of Survey Results                       
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: September 30, 2004
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DENNY-RAY HARDIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-5066

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:13-cv-00812-MCW, Judge Mary Ellen 

Coster Williams.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

Denny-Ray Hardin moves for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis. 

This appeal was dismissed on May 7, 2014 for failure 

to prosecute in accordance with the rules because Hardin 

had not paid the fee. 

Case: 14-5066 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 06/05/2014
2 HARDIN v. US

Hardin is incarcerated. Therefore, he must submit 

the required supplemental in forma pauperis form for 

prisoners, Federal Circuit Form 6A. Though Hardin 

submitted a document entitled “Supplemental In Forma 

Pauperis Form for Prisoners,” it is not this court’s Form 

6A, nor does it provide this court the authorization furnished by that form.

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

Hardin is directed to file a completed version of this 

court’s Form 6A within 21 days of this order, a copy of 

which is enclosed. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s24

Case: 14-5066 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 06/05/2014
---

B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks Year
                  Estimated volume (billions of dollars)
                  Share of outstanding real estate farm loans (percent)Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q41993
          24
          2
          4
          7
          11
          .121
          .010
          .018
          .035
          .0541994
          10
          1
          1
          3
          6
          .048
          .003
          .003
          .013
          .0261995
          12
          0
          3
          6
          4
          .055
          -.001
          .011
          .027
          .0161996
          7
          0
          1
          2
          4
          .031
          .000
          .003
          .009
          .0171997
          16
          -1
          0
          3
          14
          .064
          -.003
          -.001
          .010
          .0541998
          6
          -1
          3
          0
          5
          .022
          -.004
          .009
          .000
          .0161999
          15
          0
          3
          5
          7
          .051
          -.001
          .011
          .015
          .0222000
          12
          -12
          3
          8
          14
          .037
          -.037
          .009
          .022
          .0402001
          42
          10
          9
          5
          17
          .123
          .030
          .027
          .014
          .0492002
          35
          8
          6
          5
          16
          .097
          .022
          .017
          .014
          .0412003
          32
          4
          6
          8
          14
          .082
          .010
          .015
          .021
          .0342004
          n.a.
          1
          5
          n.a.
          n.a.
          n.a.
          .003
          .012
          n.a.
          n.a. Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: September 30, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001023298
<NAME> AVENUE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         645,083
<SECURITIES>                                    79,110
<RECEIVABLES>                                  594,969
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,494,495
<PP&E>                                          70,154
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,546,760
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,082,030
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,890
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,418,840
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,546,760
<SALES>                                      3,252,880
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,252,880
<CGS>                                        2,807,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,206,025
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (30,705)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (983,850)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (880)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (984,730)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (984,730)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1892 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                      December 20 (legislative day, December 18), 2001.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
1892) entitled ``An Act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
provide for the acceptance of an affidavit of support from another 
eligible sponsor if the original sponsor has died and the Attorney 
General has determined for humanitarian reasons that the original 
sponsor's classification petition should not be revoked.'', do pass 
with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

    Page 3, line 4, after ``law,'' insert: sister-in-law, brother-in-
law,

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1892

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
Order entered October 16, 2017 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-01114-CV 

MATTHEW D. STERN, Appellant 

V. 

BELLA CUSTOM HOMES, INC., Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-16-00079-B 

ORDER 

The reporter’s record is overdue. By letter dated October 3, 2017, appellant informed the 

Court that he has made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER

Lanetta Williams, Official Court Reporter for County Court at Law No. 2, to file the reporter’s 

record by November 16, 2017. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

 JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Warren Cook

v. Civil No. 08-cv-11-PB

City of Laconia

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

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

SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge 

Date: January 8, 2007

cc: Warren Cook, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00011-PB Document 4 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 1 of 1

Cook v. Laconia, City of Doc. 4

Dockets.Justia.com
33

C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next Quarter, Compared with a Year EarlierPercent

Purpose of loan

Total Feeder cattle Dairy Crop storage Operating 

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Hig

Seventh (Chicago) Federal Reserve District (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*)

2002: Q4... 19 58 23 21 70 9 20 74 6 23 73 4 14 50 

2003: Q1... 23 53 24 19 73 8 24 71 5 26 72 2 14 46  Q2... 18 65 18 17 78 6 19 75 6 23 71 5 9 63  Q3... 17 61 22 22 65 13 17 78 5 21 71 8 11 60  Q4... 15 58 27 31 59 10 13 80 7 17 76 8 11 54 2004: Q1... 13 56 31 20 71 10 15 73 12 11 71 18 16 50  Q2... 17 60 22 26 64 10 18 73 9 12 74 14 15 63  Q3... 13 60 27 27 64 9 15 79 6 12 66 22 11 58  Q4... 9 58 33 14 75 10 12 81 7 10 77 13 10 50 

Eleventh (Dallas) Federal Reserve District (LA*, NM*, TX)

2002: Q4... 22 66 12 26 58 15 19 75 6 18 76 6 20 64 

2003: Q1... 20 67 13 22 69 10 14 84 3 11 85 4 16 67  Q2... 16 66 18 17 70 13 16 79 6 19 75 6 15 69  Q3... 17 72 12 16 65 19 14 81 6 12 85 3 11 76  Q4... 18 68 13 22 62 16 17 80 3 14 84 2 10 76 2004: Q1... 11 70 19 13 75 12 11 83 6 11 86 3 11 72  Q2... 16 68 16 27 60 13 15 81 4 11 85 4 15 70  Q3... 16 61 23 23 61 16 11 84 4 7 83 10 9 64  Q4... 12 71 17 13 72 15 11 89 0 9 84 7 7 74 

Fifth (Richmond) Federal Reserve District (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)

2002: Q4... 27 53 20 15 69 15 21 71 7 40 53 7 30 50 

2003: Q1... 29 53 18 13 75 13 19 75 6 17 67 17 23 55  Q2... 25 60 15 24 71 6 31 63 6 6 78 17 19 71  Q3... 14 71 14 7 80 13 33 60 7 11 74 16 10 81  Q4... 21 74 5 12 82 6 17 78 6 15 75 10 14 82 2004: Q1... 10 81 10 17 61 22 24 71 6 23 68 9 12 76  Q2... 4 92 4 0 89 11 0 94 6 9 86 5 8 84  Q3... 30 61 9 22 67 11 32 63 5 39 57 4 23 69  Q4... 22 65 13 18 71 12 17 72 11 13 78 9 20 60  * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
NO. 07-09-0170-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	JUNE 5, 2009

	______________________________

	In re BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE, 

									Relator

	_________________________________

	ON ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	Pending before this court is the application of Barry Dwayne Minnfee for a writ of mandamus.  He requests that we compel the “court to respond to further motion for rehearing” concerning his request for DNA testing.  We deny the application for the reasons that follow.

	First, rules of procedure obligate one seeking mandamus relief to accompany his petition with an appendix.  Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j).  The latter must include, among other things, a certified or sworn copy of the document showing the matter complained of.  In this case, the document showing the matter complained of would be the motion requesting further rehearing from the trial court.  This Minnfee failed to do.  

	Second, Minnfee did disclose in his application for writ of mandamus that he has filed several prior motions for rehearing and that they had been “overruled.”  Whether those motions were mere reiterations of that at issue here is unknown for they too were not included in an appendix.  Nonetheless, he cites us to nothing that suggests, much less requires, a trial court to act upon repetitious motions that are akin to motions for new trial.  With regard to the latter, they are considered overruled by operation of law if no action is taken upon them within 75 days of the date the final order was signed.  Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c).  Given that a motion for rehearing which attempts to alter a final order is much like one for new trial, see Edwards Lifesciences, L.L.C. v. Covenant Health Systems, 205 S.W.3d 687, 690 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2006, no pet.) (stating that the substance of the motion controls as opposed to its label), we see no reason to treat them differently here.  So, given that the allegations in and the file-mark on Minnfee’s application for writ leads us to conclude that 1) more than 75 days has lapsed from the date upon which the trial court entered its final order and 2) the trial court has yet to act on the motion, it can and should be considered as overruled by operation of law.

	Accordingly, the application for writ of mandamus pending before this court is denied.

							Per Curiam