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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Preferred Merchant Hood, LLC

v. Civil No. 06-cv-067-JD

Family Dollar, Inc.

O R D E R

The parties have filed a motion to stay this case and toll

all deadlines.

This case was remanded to the Derry District Court with the

only remaining issue in this court being the assessment of

attorneys’ fees against the defendant. Deadlines set by this

court relating to attorneys’ fees are stayed. With respect to

any other deadlines, the parties must seek a stay through the

state district court.

The parties shall promptly notify the court when they have

either resolved this matter or have determined that a resolution

is not feasible.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

May 2, 2006

cc: James P. Harris, Esquire

Vincent J. Pisegna, Esquire

Douglas M. Watson, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00067-JD Document 31 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      13,278,000
<SECURITIES>                                 7,396,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,757,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   669,000
<INVENTORY>                                    802,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            33,893,000
<PP&E>                                      13,911,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,348,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,500,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,409,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    55,576,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (15,926,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                55,500,000
<SALES>                                     14,205,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,205,000
<CGS>                                        7,289,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,810,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             656,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (463,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (463,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)


</TABLE>
*Release Date: June 30, 2007*

*Other formats:*
ASCII (2 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

----

```
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) |
|------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
||
| 7    | 0                                      | 1                                                     | 2 | 4 | .031 | .000 | .003 | .009 | .017 |
| 16   | -1                                     | 0                                                     | 3 | 14 | .064 | -.003 | -.001 | .010 | .054 |
| 6    | -1                                     | 3                                                     | 0 | 5 | .022 | -.004 | .009 | .000 | .016 |
| 15   | 0                                      | 3                                                     | 5 | 7 | .051 | -.001 | .011 | .015 | .022 |
| 12   | -12                                    | 3                                                     | 8 | 14 | .037 | -.037 | .009 | .022 | .040 |
| 42   | 10                                     | 9                                                     | 5 | 17 | .123 | .030 | .027 | .014 | .049 |
| 35   | 8                                      | 6                                                     | 5 | 16 | .097 | .022 | .017 | .014 | .041 |
| 32   | 4                                      | 6                                                     | 8 | 14 | .082 | .010 | .015 | .021 | .034 |
| 18   | 1                                      | 5                                                     | 2 | 10 | .044 | .003 | .012 | .005 | .021 |
| 17   | 2                                      | 11                                                    | 4 | 0 | .039 | .005 | .024 | .009 | .000 |
| 20   | 2                                      | 6                                                     | 1 | 12 | .042 | .003 | .012 | .002 | .023 |
| n.a. | -3                                     | n.a.                                                  | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | -.006 | n.a. | 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.
```

*Other formats:*
ASCII (2 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-239-1-PB

Janet L. Smith

O R D E R

Defendant appeared for a bail revocation hearing pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3148. The violation of bail is not contested. Given

the severity of her heroin addiction when arrested and her use of

Suboxone within two weeks of round-the-clock residential

treatment, I find that the defendant is unlikely to abide by any

condition or combination of conditions and that she is a danger

to herself. The conditions of release are revoked.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

pending trial. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his designated representative for confinement in a

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On

order of a court of the United States or on request of an

Case 1:07-cr-00239-PB Document 17 Filed 05/15/08 Page 1 of 2
2

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

___________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 15, 2008 

cc: Michael J. Iacopino, Esq.

 Helen W. Fitzgibbon, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00239-PB Document 17 Filed 05/15/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-21-01-SM

Kim Farrell

O R D E R

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

trial is granted (document 10). Trial has been rescheduled for the July 2007

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

than July 3, 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: August 24 , 2007 at 2:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: September 5, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00021-SM Document 13 Filed 06/22/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

June 22, 2007

cc: Richard Foley, Esq. 

Robert Veiga, AUSA 

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00021-SM Document 13 Filed 06/22/07 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, Chief Judge, United States District Court 1 for the Eastern District of Arkansas. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3792

___________ Barbara Whitehead, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 15, 1998 Filed: May 21, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Barbara White head appeals the district court’s denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 1 m o tion. We have carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, and conclude Whitehead’s motion was properly denied. A ccordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of National Holdings Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Mark Goldwasser, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:




(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and





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











/s/ Mark
Goldwasser


Mark Goldwasser


Chief Executive Officer


May 14, 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William Hilton

v. Case No. 07-cv-292-PB

Androscoggin Valley Hospital, et al.

J U D G M E N T

In accordance with the Orders by Judge Paul Barbadoro dated December 20, 2007, 

April 3, 2008 and April 8, 2008, judgment is hereby entered.

By the Court,

/s/ James R. Starr 

James R. Starr, Clerk

April 10, 2008

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:07-cv-00292-PB Document 13 Filed 04/10/08 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:08-cv-00129-JL Document 1-2 Filed 04/04/08 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:08-cv-00129-JL Document 1-2 Filed 04/04/08 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1




I, John McKowen, Chief Executive Officer of Navidec, Inc., certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Navidec, Inc.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
annual report; and

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.

         4. The registrant's other certify officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaing disclosure controls and procedures (as determined in
Exchange act Rules 131-14 and 15Q-14) for the registrant and have:

         a)       Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
                  that material information relating to the registrant,
                  including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made know to us by
                  other within those entities, particularly during the period in
                  which this quarterly report is being prepared;

         b)       Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
                  controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to
                  the filing date of this report (the "Evaluation Date") and

         c)       Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
                  effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based
                  on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. The registrant's other certify officers and I have disclosed, passed
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of the registrant's board of directors;

         a)       all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
                  internal controls which could adversely affect the
                  registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
                  financial data and have identified for the registrant's
                  auditors any material weakness in internal controls; and

         b)       any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
                  or other employees who have a significant role in the
                  registrant's internal controls; and

         6. The registrant's other certify officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there where significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 14, 2003

/s/  John McKowen

John McKowen
Chief Executive Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 15, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00332

- CV

AME & FE INVESTMENTS, LTD.,

Appellant

v.

NEC NETWORKS, LLC , dba CaptureRX,

Appellee s

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- CI

- 11952

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The a ppellee ’ s motion to reconsider or clarify is DENIED.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 15th day of December, 2017

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### Lorenzo M. McLEAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-6977.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 22, 2003.

David Bernard Hargett, Hargett & Watson, P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Lorenzo M. McLean seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of *995appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McLean has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward J. DRYDEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-30166.

D.C. No. CR-01-00093-BJR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 14, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Edward Joseph Dryden appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. *366We review de novo, *United States v. Isaacson,*155 F.3d 1083, 1084 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

Dryden contends the district court erred by enhancing his sentence for abuse of a position of trust pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 because his position as company president did not enable him to conceal his misdeeds from his victims. This contention lacks merit because Dryden’s position was characterized by managerial discretion and contributed in a significant way to facilitating the commission and concealment of the offense. *See id.*at 1085.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of GK Intelligent Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gary F. Kimmons, Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 the
         operation of the Company.


/s/ Gary F. Kimmons
_____________________________________
Gary F. Kimmons
Chief Financial Officer
May 18, 2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States Securities

and Exchange Commission,

Plaintiff 

 v.

Piyush G. Patel; David J.Kirkpatrick; 

Eric Jaeger;Bruce D. Kay; Robert J. Gagalis;

Robert G. Barber, Jr; Lawrence Collins;

Michael A.Skubisz; Jerry A. Shanahan;

and Hor Chong (David) Boey,

Defendants

Civil No. 07-cv-39-SM

J U D G M E N T

In accordance with following, judgment is hereby entered:

1. Order by Judge Steven McAuliffe dated March 24, 2008, granting in part defendant 

Collins’ Motion to Dismiss;

2. Order by Judge Steven McAuliffe dated March 24, 2008, granting in part defendant 

Kirkpatrick’s Motion to Dismiss;

3. Order by Judge Steven McAuliffe dated March 24, 2008, granting in part defendant

Patel’s Motion to Dismiss;

4. Order by Judge Steven McAuliffe dated March 24, 2008, granting in part defendant 

Jaeger’s Motion to Dismiss;

5. Order by Judge Steven McAuliffe dated July 31, 2008 as to defendants Robert J. 

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 365 Filed 07/25/13 Page 1 of 3
Gagalis and Bruce D. Kay;

6. Order by Judge Steven McAuliffe dated August 27, 2008 as to defendant Robert G. 

Barber;

7. Order by Judge Steven McAuliffe dated September 30, 2009, granting in part motions 

to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 157, 158, 159, 160, 162); and, granting in part motion for judgment on 

pleadings (Doc. No. 165);

8. Orders of Final Judgment by Judge Steven McAuliffe dated June 24, 2011, as to 

defendants Lawrence Collins, Michael Skubisz, David J. Kirkpatrick, and Piyush G. Patel;

9. Order of Final Judgment by Judge Steven McAuliffe dated January 16, 2013 as to 

defendant Eric Jaeger;

10. Order by Judge Steven McAuliffe dated February 25, 2013 as to defendant Jerry 

Shanahan;

11. Order by Judge Steven McAuliffe dated July 22, 2013, granting default judgment 

against defendant Hor Chong Boey.

By the Court,

/s/ James R. Starr

James R. Starr

Clerk of Court

Date: July 25, 2013

cc: Nancy J. Gegenheimer 

Leslie J. Hughes 

Jeffrey S. Lyons 

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 365 Filed 07/25/13 Page 2 of 3
Diana K. Lloyd 

John Richard Baraniak , Jr.

Peter Bryan Moores 

Lucy J. Karl 

Steven M. Gordon 

Conrad WP Cascadden 

Jeffrey B. Rudman 

Jonathan A. Shapiro 

Miranda Hooker 

Peter A. Spaeth 

Elizabeth H. Skey 

James Lux 

James W. Prendergast 

Patrick T. Murphy 

Bruce A. Singal 

John C. Kissinger

Michelle R. Peirce 

Michael D. Ramsdell 

Mark B. Dubnoff 

Richard J. McCarthy 

Jennifer M. Ryan

Maria R. Durant 

William H. Kettlewell 

Kevin E. Sharkey 

Ann Pauly

Victor W. Dahar 

Andrew Good 

Philip G. Cormier

Peter D. Anderson 

Willliam Cintolo 

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 365 Filed 07/25/13 Page 3 of 3
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1682

___________________________

Ruth Richter

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Commissioner, Social Security Administration

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________

Submitted: October 30, 2018

Filed: November 5, 2018 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Ruth Richter appeals from the order of the District Court granting the Social 1

Security Administration Commissioner’s motion to dismiss her civil action arising

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Nebraska.
from the 1999 termination of her supplemental security income. We have thoroughly

reviewed the record and find no error warranting reversal. See Jenkins v. Kansas City

Mo. Sch. Dist., 516 F.3d 1074, 1080 (8th Cir. 2008) (“We review issues of subject

matter jurisdiction de novo.”). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R.

47B. We deny as moot the Commissioner’s pending motion to dismiss. 

______________________________

-2-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kenneth P. Saalfrank

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00046-JL

Town of Alton, et al.

 O R D E R

The court appreciates counsel’s presentations at the hearing

and that reasonable positions were taken, and reasonable

arguments were advanced, by all concerned.

The Alton defendants will produce the documents responsive

to requests ##7, 8, 9 by January 29, 2009. The Alton defendants

will produce the documents responsive to requests ##2, 10, 17,

18, 19, 20, 21, on or before February 13, 2009. Further, the

documents responsive to requests ##17 and 18 may be designated

AEO.

The Alton defendants will produce documents responsive to

requests ##22-30 on or before March 31, 2009. After making the

March 31 production, the Town of Alton will submit to the court

records manifesting the costs associated therewith to enable the

court to determine who will bear those costs.

Case 1:08-cv-00046-JL Document 69 Filed 01/27/09 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: January 27, 2009

cc: Robert S. Carey, Esq.

Jeffrey C. Spear, Esq.

Charles P. Bauer, Esq.

Jeanne P. Herrick, Esq.

Catherine M. Costanzo, Esq.

K. Joshua Scott, Esq.

William G. Scott, Esq.

Brian J.S. Cullen, Esq.

Tara Latour, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00046-JL Document 69 Filed 01/27/09 Page 2 of 2