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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joshua J. Hurd

v.

FNU Granville, et al.

Civil No. 07-cv-165-SM

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows: the sum of $7.00 is due no later than July 5,

2007. In addition, 20% of each preceding month’s income credited

to plaintiff’s account to be remitted by the New Hampshire State

Prison when the amount in the account exceeds $10.00 until the

sum of $350.00 has been paid. Failure to pay the fee as ordered

will result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. In all

other respects plaintiff’s request for in forma pauperis has been

granted.

SO ORDERED.

___________________

R. Muirhead

ed States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 4, 2007

cc: Joshua J. Hurd, pro se

Bonnie S. Reed, Financial Administrator

New Hampshire State Prison, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:07-cv-00165-JD Document 3 Filed 06/04/07 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 20.1


LETTER TO THE SHAREHOLDERS
THIRD QUARTER REPORT
FISCAL 2001

To Our Shareholders:

         The results of the most recently completed quarter reflect market
trends that we have reported earlier this fiscal year. As a result of decreased
demand in the truck and construction markets and increasingly competitive
markets, we have seen a downturn in income. However, we are responding to these
market trends with quick and decisive actions.

         Revenues for the third quarter of our 2001 fiscal year were $176.4
million, compared to the $165.5 million reported for the same period in fiscal
2000. For the nine-month period ended October 31, 2000, total revenues were
$545.8 million, compared to the $523.3 million reported for the first nine
months of fiscal 2000.

         For the quarter, we had a net loss of $4.2 million, or $(0.32) per
share, compared to net income of $2.3 million, or $0. 18 per share for the same
period a year ago. For the nine months ended October 31, 2000, our net loss
totaled $4.6 million, or $(0.35) per share, compared to net income of $8.3
million, or $0.63 per share for the first three quarters of fiscal 2000.

         We are taking aggressive action to improve efficiencies and return to
profitability. The steps that we have taken to date include an organization-wide
redeployment of human resources. As a result of these steps, we have reduced our
work force by over 5 percent and will realize annual savings of $3 to $4
million.


<PAGE>


         In addition, we have realized a $24 million reduction in inventories
over last year. This is critical in light of reduced market demand and
industry-wide depressed truck valuations. The quarter's losses reflect about $5
million lower gross margins from declining values of certain inventories as they
have been sold. Recently we have also implemented the new "RDO Way of Selling"
process across 90% of our locations. We expect to leverage this process for
continued market share gains in Construction and Ag, where we've achieved gains
of two to four percentage points.

         On a positive note, our Midwest agricultural operations continue to see
significant improvement with increased profitability through the first nine
months of fiscal 2001. This sector has been under pressure for a number of years
and it's good to see it continue to strengthen. Our strong performance in Ag,
combined with the steps we've taken to restructure our dealership network will
enhance the value of our franchise and enable us to ensure continued growth in
our profitable business segments.

                  As always, thank you for your continuing interest and support.

Sincerely,


/s/ Ronald D. Offutt

Ronald D. Offutt
Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Larry L. Lemay

v. Case No. 08-cv-286-SM

State of New Hampshire, et al.

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated January 29, 2009, no objection having been filed, for the reasons

set forth therein. Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

February 18, 2009

 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Larry L. Lemay, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00286-SM Document 5 Filed 02/18/09 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      15,600,980              15,600,980
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                              218,501,952             218,501,952
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,343,992               2,343,992
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                         515,715                 515,715
<DEPRECIATION>                                 181,887                 181,997
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             236,832,950             236,832,950
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      151,982,838             151,982,838
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        96,694                  96,694
<OTHER-SE>                                  84,753,418              84,753,418
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               236,832,950             236,832,950
<SALES>                                      7,951,873              17,900,748
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,672,075               4,961,459
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               605,000               1,005,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,984,344               5,086,069
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,990,458               7,958,346
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,532,034               2,929,079
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,458,424               5,029,267
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,458,424               5,029,267
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25                    0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25                    0.64
        


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATION




In
      connection with the Annual Report of SPO Medical, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Report") filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Michael Braunold, Chief Executive Officer
      of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.




MARCH
      21,
      2008





/s/
                Michael BraunoldMichael
                BraunoldChief
                Executive Officer






A
      SIGNED
      ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED
      TO
      SPO MEDICAL INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY SPO MEDICAL INC. AND FURNISHED TO
      THE
      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1921 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1921

    To eliminate the requirement for students to register with the 
selective service system in order to receive Federal student financial 
                              assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2001

 Mr. DeFazio (for himself, Ms. Lee, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Sanders, and Ms. 
  McKinney) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the 
Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined 
 by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
        fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To eliminate the requirement for students to register with the 
selective service system in order to receive Federal student financial 
                              assistance.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Financial Aid Regulatory 
Relief Act''

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT.

    Subsection (f) of section 12 of the Military Selective Service Act 
(50 U.S.C. App. 462(f)) is repealed.

SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

    Subsection (n) of section 484 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
(20 U.S.C. 1091(n)) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Everett Holloway, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 433]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), rendered September 30, 2004, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

DALONTE D. FOARD,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

TODD BAHENSKY, Director; D. WINKLER, 

Correction Officer; HOBBS, Correction 

Officer; and BEAVERNESS, Correction 

Officer;

Defendants.

8:23CV217

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On June 29, 2023, the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to update his address. Filing No. 11. On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff responded 

to the Order, indicating he is now in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons at U.S.P. 

Leavenworth. Filing No. 12. However, prior to receiving Plaintiff’s updated address the 

Clerk of the Court sent an order granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 

and setting the deadline for receipt of his initial partial filing fee for July 10, 2023, Filing 

No. 9, to Plaintiff’s last known address as set forth in his Complaint, Filing No. 1, which 

was returned to this Court as undeliverable on June 16, 2023, Filing No. 10, and was not 

resent. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

8:23-cv-00217-JFB-PRSE Doc # 15 Filed: 07/28/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 73
2

1. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to resend a copy of the Order at Filing 

No. 9 to Plaintiff and to the appropriate official at Plaintiff’s current institution.

2. On the Court’s own motion, Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this 

order to pay his initial partial filing fee of $7.82.

3. The Clerk of the Court is further instructed to extend the previous initial 

partial filing fee payment deadline set forth in Filing No. 9 as follows: August 28, 2023: 

initial partial filing fee due.

Dated this 28th day of July, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Court

8:23-cv-00217-JFB-PRSE Doc # 15 Filed: 07/28/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 74
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Michael Lavette Daniels, Appellant

No. 06-16-00102-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 124th District Court of 

Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 45,187-

B). Memorandum Opinion delivered by 

Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and 

Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Michael Lavette Daniels, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED FEBRUARY 1, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dennis A. Smith

v. Civil No. 07-cv-119-SM

NH Department of Corrections,

Commissioner, et al.

O R D E R

On July 21, 2008, the Deputy Clerk forwarded to me for

ruling Document No. 90, Mr. Smith’s “Motion to Waive Fed. R. Civ

P. 5(d)” and the Objection. In an effort to understand the

motion and objection, I spent over one hour searching the docket

for the objection and motion of July 7, 2008 referenced by Mr.

Smith in his “Motion to Waive”. No such documents were docketed. 

On July 22nd, the Deputy Clerk forwarded “hard copies” of

the Objection and Motion date stamped as received by the court on

July 7th with a related note that they were referenced in

Document no. 90. Neither document has been docketed or scanned

into CM/ECF as required. The notice of non-compliance with Fed.

R. Civ. P. 5(d) sent to Mr. Smith is plainly wrong since the

interrogatories were clearly used by Mr. Smith “in the

proceeding.”

Case 1:07-cv-00119-SM Document 95 Filed 07/23/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The court apologizes to Mr. Smith for the court’s failure.

On the merits, Mr. Smith’s “Objection” is well-founded. The

copies of interrogatories sent to him by counsel are not legible. 

Defendant is ordered to serve the original answers to

interrogatories - not illegible photo copies. Second, the

answers to Wrenn interrogatories 5 and 11 and Heath

interrogatories 20, 28 an 29 are not sufficiently responsive. 

Counsel is ordered to supplement within ten (10) days. The Clerk

is ordered to docket the “Objection” and “Motion” received

forthwith. When docketed, the docket is to note that they are

granted by this order.

Document no. 90 is denied as moot.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: July 23, 2008

cc: Dennis A. Smith, pro se

 Danielle Leah Pacik, Esq.

 

Case 1:07-cv-00119-SM Document 95 Filed 07/23/08 Page 2 of 2
#### ROCHE v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

No. 17432.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 24, 1943.

*760Charles J. Mundy, of New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Spencer, Phelps, Dunbar & Marks and Louis S. Claverie, all of New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

McCALEB, Judge.

Plaintiff, Marie Roche, brought this suit to recover the avails of a certain industrial insurance policy issued by the defendant on the life of her mother, Rosa Poree, who died on May 15, 1936. The plaintiff is not the named beneficiary of the policy which is payable, by its terms, to the executor or administrator of the insured’s estate. She, however, alleges in her petition that she has been recognized by the defendant as the beneficiary of the policy because the insurance company, after her mother’s death, paid to her the proceeds which were due on another insurance policy issued by it on the life of her mother and slid maintains that, in view of the insurer’s action in making this payment, it is now estopped from asserting that she is not the lawful beneficiary under the policy sued upon.

The defendant filed an exception of no right or cause of action to plaintiff’s petition which was sustained by the lower court. Plaintiff has appealed from the adverse decision.

Counsel for plaintiff concedes, as he must in view of the well-established jurisprudence (see Toles v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., La.App., 166 So. 172), that, since the policy is payable to the executor or administrator of the insured’s estate, plaintiff would ordinarily be without a right of action to claim the proceeds because she is neither the executrix or administratrix of her mother’s succession nor has she been recognized as the heir of her mother and put in possession of the estate by judgment of court. However, he maintains that the rule announced in the Toles case is inapplicable to the instant matter, in view of plaintiff’s allegations that the defendant paid her the proceeds of another policy issued on the life of her mother and that, since this other policy was also payable to-the estate of the insured, defendant is now estopped from contending that plaintiff is not the lawful beneficiary of the insurance.

We find no merit in counsel’s contention.. The policy, upon which payment was made to the plaintiff, contains a facility of payment clause which gave the defendant the right to pay the proceeds to plaintiff without admitting any liability on its part to her. Surely, this payment on another policy cannot form the basis of an estoppel against the defendant and deprive it of its legal right to insist that plaintiff is without a right of action to sue on the instant policy, which is payable to the executor or administrator of the insured’s estate.

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

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

ISONICS CORPORATION

 

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350of the

Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) ofIsonics Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended July 31, 2008,each of the undersigned Christopher Toffales, the Chief Executive Officer ofIsonics Corporation, and Gregory A. Meadows, the Chief Financial Officer ofIsonics Corporation hereby certifies 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 the undersigned’s knowledge and belief:

 

1.             The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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 ofthe Company.

 
| September 18, 2008 | /s/ Gregory A. Meadows                      |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                    |                                        |
|                    | Gregory A. Meadows, Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Daniel L. Scharre, certify that:
     1.     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Larscom Incorporated;
     2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on suchevaluation;
          c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affectedor is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
     5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
          a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting, which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlsover financial reporting.
Date: August 13, 2003     By: /s/ Daniel L. Scharre        Chief Executive Officer