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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

John L. Buchet

v. Case No. 06-mc-61-SM

All Defendants

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s proposed complaint is before me for preliminary

review to determine whether leave to file it should be granted. 

See Order, dated November 21, 2006, in Civil No. 06-cv-319-SM.

Although it is exceedingly difficult to decipher, the

proposed complaint seems to involve the same general subject

matter addressed in the previously dismissed complaint filed by

plaintiff in Civil No. 06-cv-319-SM, that is, claimed property

interests in land in North Sandwich, masonian law, illegitimacy

of the state government, and a general challenge to state legal

processes. Because the proposed complaint is facially without

merit, it fails to state a cause of action upon which relief

might be granted, rests upon assertions of fact that appear to be

delusional and frivolous, does not describe any cognizable legal

theory, and provides no hint that an amendment would be anything

but futile, and to protect plaintiff from incurring a substantial

filing fee only to have his complaint promptly dismissed, as well

Case 1:06-mc-00061-SM Document 3 Filed 07/20/09 Page 1 of 2
2

as to protect the proposed defendant(s) from the burden of

responding to frivolous and harassing litigation, plaintiff is

denied leave to file the complaint.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

July 20, 2009

cc: John L. Buchet, pro se

Case 1:06-mc-00061-SM Document 3 Filed 07/20/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 06-cr-160-01-SM

Kyshawn Ross

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 April 2007 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver of

Speedy Trial Rights not later than February 6, 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 necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:06-cr-00160-SM Document 11 Filed 02/01/07 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: March 21, 2007 at 3:30 PM

Jury Selection: April 3, 2007 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

February 1, 2007 /s/ Steven J. McAuliffe 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

 Jonathan Saxe, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00160-SM Document 11 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 2
#### WRIGHT et al. v. TEXAS & N. O. R. CO. et al.

No. 2670.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Jan. 26, 1945.

For original opinion, see 19 So.2d 894.

A. Deutsche O’Neal, of Houma, and Pugh, Lanier & Pugh, of Thibodaux, for appellants.

Ellender & Wright, of Houma, and Harry McCall, Gill & Simon, and Carroll Mon-tet, all of New Orleans, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The decree in this matter was rendered on December 13th, 1944, and notice thereof was served on counsel for plaintiff by registered mail on December 15th, 1944, and the application for a rehearing was not filed in this Court until January 4th, 1945.

By the provisions of Act No. 16 of 1910, judgments rendered by this Court become final and executory on the fifteenth calendar day after rendition. See also Section 24, Article 7 of the Constitution of 1921, and Thompson v. Leach & McClain et al., 11 So.2d 925.

It is obvious that the application was not filed within the time required by law, and for that reason the application can not be entertained for having been filed too late.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

National Pasteurized Egg

v. Civil No. 07-cv-00103-JL

L. John Davidson

 PROCEDURAL ORDER

The bench trial in this matter will commence April 18, 2011

at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2. On or before March 18, 2011, each

party shall file:

A. The materials required by Rule 26(a)(3)(A) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 16.2(a);

B. The trial memorandum (not to exceed 25 pages) and

request for findings of fact and rulings of law required by Local

Rule 16.2(b)(2);

C. Any motions in limine (keeping in mind that the case

will be tried without a jury);

D. A joint statement of agreed-upon facts; and

E. A joint timeline of significant events setting forth

all pertinent dates, times, and events, in whatever format the

parties jointly choose (in other words, the parties need not

comply with Local Rule 5.1(a) with respect to the timeline).

Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 120 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 2
On or before April 1, 2011, each party shall file any

objections to the other side's final pretrial materials, as

provided by Rule 26(a)(3)(B) and Local Rule 16.2(d). The final

pretrial conference in this matter shall take place on April 6,

2011, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 2. 

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: February 10, 2011

cc: D. William Toone, Esq.

Peter G. Callaghan, Esq.

L. John Davidson, pro se

2

Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 120 Filed 02/10/11 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Nicholaus Samora

v. Civil No. 07-cv-189-JL

Larry Blaisdell, Warden,

Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility

O R D E R

Before the Court is Samora’s petition for a writ of habeas

corpus (document no. 1). The matter previously came before this

Court for preliminary review to determine whether or not Samora

had raised claims cognizable in a federal habeas action. On July

30, 2007, I issued an Order (document no. 3) directing Samora to

amend his petition to demonstrate that all of the claims raised

therein had been properly exhausted in the state courts. Samora

complied with that Order by electing to forego his unexhausted

claims. 

As I have previously found that Samora has properly

demonstrated that his remaining claim, challenging his conviction

and sentence on double jeopardy grounds, has been properly

exhausted, I now direct that this action proceed. Accordingly,

the petition shall be served upon the Respondent, which shall

Case 1:07-cv-00189-JL Document 6 Filed 01/31/08 Page 1 of 3
1Both of the motions filed by Petitioner have been granted.

2

file an answer or other pleading in response to the allegations

made therein. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254

Proceedings (“§ 2254 Rule 4") (requiring reviewing judge to order

a response to the petition). 

The Clerk’s office is directed to serve the New Hampshire

Office of the Attorney General, as provided in the Agreement on

Acceptance of Service, copies of this Order, the original habeas

petition (document no. 1), this Court’s Order to amend (document

no. 3), petitioner’s motion to forego unexhausted claims

(document no. 4), and petitioner’s motion to correct the record

(document no. 5).1 Respondent will answer or otherwise plead

within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The answer

shall comply with the requirements of § 2254 Rule 5 (setting

forth contents of the answer). 

Upon receipt of the response, the Court will determine

whether a hearing is warranted. See § 2254 Rule 8 (providing

circumstances under which a hearing is appropriate). 

Petitioner is referred to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, which requires

that every pleading, written motion, notice, and similar paper,

after the petition, shall be served on all parties. Such service

Case 1:07-cv-00189-JL Document 6 Filed 01/31/08 Page 2 of 3
3

is to be made by mailing the material to the parties’

attorney(s). 

SO ORDERED. 

_______________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 31, 2008

cc: Nicholaus Samora, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00189-JL Document 6 Filed 01/31/08 Page 3 of 3
#### H. A. HOWE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 7783.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 11, 1938.

Eugene Meacham, of Washington, D. G, for petitioner.

James W. Morris, Sewall Key, Morrison Shafroth, and Arthur PI. Fast, all of Washington, D. G, for. respondent.

Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.

*1015PER CURIAM.

It is ordered that the appeal herein be, and the same is dismissed, pursuant to motion of petitioner.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v . Case No. 07-cr-227-01-SM

Sylvia Casto

ORDER

Defendant Casto's motion to continue the final pretrial conference and tria l

is granted (document 10) . Trial has been rescheduled for the June 2008 trial

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

February 11, 2008 . On the filing of such waiver, her 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 : May 22, 2008 at 11 :30 a .m.

Jury Selection : June 3, 2008 at 9 :30 a .m.

Case 1:07-cr-00227-SM Document 11 Filed 01/28/08 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED .

January 28, 2008

cc : Bjorn Lange, Esq.

William Morse, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

2

Case 1:07-cr-00227-SM Document 11 Filed 01/28/08 Page 2 of 2
11

A.7. Distribution of Dollar Amount of Non-real-estate Farm Loans, by Effective Interest RatePercent

Effective interest rate (percent)

Zero 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 

All to to to to to to to to to to to to to to 

Quarter rates 4.9 5.9 6.9 7.9 8.9 9.9 10.9 11.9 12.9 13.9 14.9 15.9 16.9 17.9 1993: Q2... 100 * 4.00 14.00 22.00 18.00 16.00 20.00 5.00 1.00 * * * * * 1994: Q2... 100 4.00 4.00 23.00 21.00 22.00 20.00 4.00 2.00 .01 .01 .01 * * * 1995: Q2... 100 * * 3.00 14.00 11.00 35.00 24.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 * * .01 * 1996: Q2... 100 * 14.00 14.00 19.00 15.00 18.00 15.00 3.00 1.00 .01 .01 * .01 * 1997: Q2... 100 * .01 6.00 11.00 20.00 30.00 21.00 9.00 2.00 .01 .01 .01 .01 * 1998: Q2... 100 * .01 3.00 14.00 31.00 30.00 14.00 7.00 1.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 1999: Q2... 100 .01 4.00 4.00 12.00 37.00 30.00 11.00 2.00 .01 .01 * .01 * * 2000: Q2... 100 .01 .01 .01 4.00 19.00 36.00 27.00 11.00 2.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 2001: Q2... 100 .01 3.00 8.00 29.00 31.00 22.00 5.00 2.00 .39 .07 .03 .01 * * 2002: Q2... 100 23.24 22.45 17.77 22.77 10.15 2.75 .77 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 2003: Q2... 100 27.25 23.90 21.19 18.64 6.55 1.77 .51 .08 .08 * .03 * * * 2004: Q2... 100 42.54 25.54 17.44 10.50 3.02 .61 .25 .02 .05 * .02 * * * 2000: Q4... 100 * .01 .01 3.00 15.00 30.00 34.00 13.00 4.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 2001: Q1... 100 .01 * 8.00 7.00 28.00 33.00 17.00 5.00 2.00 .01 .01 * .01 .01  Q2... 100 .01 3.00 8.00 29.00 31.00 22.00 5.00 2.00 .39 .07 .03 .01 * *  Q3... 100 1.10 9.00 23.00 25.00 25.00 12.00 3.00 1.00 .26 .01 * * * *  Q4... 100 21.20 32.80 13.60 16.40 10.50 4.10 .90 .30 .10 .00 .00 * * * 2002: Q1... 100 23.76 17.31 19.76 23.14 10.76 4.30 .80 .00 .00 * .00 .00 * .00  Q2... 100 23.24 22.45 17.77 22.77 10.15 2.75 .77 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  Q3... 100 26.33 27.25 18.41 15.57 8.76 2.82 .49 .29 .06 * * * * *  Q4... 100 38.69 23.76 14.20 12.97 7.73 2.02 .44 .04 .04 .04 .02 .02 * * 2003: Q1... 100 37.28 22.16 18.64 14.73 4.88 1.72 .47 .02 .02 * * * * *  Q2... 100 27.25 23.90 21.19 18.64 6.55 1.77 .51 .08 .08 * .03 * * *  Q3... 100 41.83 23.79 18.38 11.11 3.67 .77 .22 .04 .04 .02 .02 .02 * *  Q4... 100 46.26 21.96 16.40 10.95 3.03 1.10 .25 * .02 * .02 * * * 2004: Q1... 100 43.84 22.35 17.33 11.30 3.56 1.16 .27 .05 .05 * .07 .02 * *  Q2... 100 42.54 25.54 17.44 10.50 3.02 .61 .25 .02 .05 * .02 * * *  Note. Non-real-estate farm loans of $1,000 or more made by insured commercial banks. Effective (compounded) annual interest from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. * Indicates value of zero. Source. Federal Reserve Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, conducted during the first full business week of the sequarter.
1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-2559

___________

Peter Grzeskowiak, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

Keith Mills, Parole Officer, * of Minnesota.

*

Appellee. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

 Submitted: December 7, 2001

 Filed: December 26, 2001

___________

Before McMILLIAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Peter Grzeskowiak appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he sought to hold his parole officer

liable for ignoring Mr. Grzeskowiak’s requests to visit his mother. Upon our de novo

review, we are satisfied that the district court’s disposition was correct given

Mr. Grzeskowiak’s status as a parolee.
-2-

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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*)

2001: Q1... 13 54 33 14 70 16 25 68 7 29 61 10 8 43  Q2... 20 57 23 22 65 13 22 71 7 29 61 9 12 53  Q3... 23 59 18 24 67 9 22 72 6 27 66 7 13 60  Q4... 19 53 28 24 68 8 16 77 6 28 67 5 12 47 2002: Q1... 19 54 27 25 68 7 20 72 8 27 67 6 11 49  Q2... 18 63 19 32 64 3 20 73 7 28 65 6 12 60  Q3... 23 54 23 32 64 3 26 67 7 25 69 6 16 49  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 

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

2001: Q1... 21 57 22 17 65 18 18 77 5 14 83 3 17 57  Q2... 24 54 21 16 64 20 18 78 5 14 77 9 18 60  Q3... 22 60 18 19 63 19 18 77 5 15 80 5 18 63  Q4... 24 63 13 18 67 16 16 78 6 11 81 8 19 64 2002: Q1... 29 55 16 25 65 10 18 75 7 18 77 5 25 59  Q2... 29 60 11 37 58 5 20 74 6 20 74 6 23 58  Q3... 24 63 13 30 60 10 20 73 7 16 76 9 21 58  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 

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

2001: Q1... 17 70 13 12 88 0 18 82 0 10 81 10 8 72  Q2... 27 70 3 17 83 0 26 74 0 19 73 8 13 88  Q3... 40 55 5 28 72 0 27 73 0 6 76 18 8 88  Q4... 25 67 8 30 70 0 18 76 6 29 57 14 19 74 2002: Q1... 19 70 11 16 76 8 20 72 8 18 79 4 21 69  Q2... 31 62 8 27 73 0 23 77 0 29 67 4 33 63  Q3... 30 57 13 22 78 0 22 78 0 21 63 16 33 59  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 
34

C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next Quarter, Compared with a Year Earlier (continued)Percent

Purpose of loan

Feeder livestock Other intermediate1 Farm real estate Other operating2 Far

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

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

2001: Q1... 14 76 10 18 76 6 28 62 11 7 69 23 34  Q2... 17 75 8 19 76 6 28 64 8 6 67 27 35  Q3... 17 77 6 16 78 6 26 62 12 10 68 22 28  Q4... 17 77 6 25 64 11 29 55 17 6 75 19 44 2002: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2003: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.  Note. Beginning in 2002, the Minneapolis Reserve District will no longer report loan demand. 1. Non-real-estate loans with a term greater than one season. Primarily comprises loans for farm machinery. 2. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (inclu * 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.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55069-55070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22268]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER08-100-003; ER07-265-003; ER07-1215-004]


Sempra Energy Trading LLC; Sempra Energy Solutions LLC; The Royal 
Bank of Scotland plc; Notice of Filing

September 17, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 11, 2008, Sempra Energy Trading LLC, 
Sempra Energy Solutions LLC, and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc 
(together Applicants) filed a response to Commission staff regarding 
its July 30, 2008 filing, affirming that none of the Applicants or any 
of their affiliates has erected or will erect barriers to entry into 
the relevant market.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.

[[Page 55070]]

Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 
copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d4929186979bbab8bdbab187a1a4a4bba6a094b2b1a6b7fab3bba2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b6f0f3e4f5f9d8dadfd8d3e5c3c6c6d9c4c2f6d0d3c4d598d1d9c0">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 2, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-22268 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as ofAugust 9, 2018, by and among BARCLAYS COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES LLC, asDepositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Servicer and SpecialServicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administratorand Custodian and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee withrespect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2018-CHRS (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

 

Pursuant to Section3.19 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Marthinsen, Managing Director of SpecialServicing do hereby certify that:

 

1.             Areview of the activities of the Special Servicer during the period from August9, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and 

 

2.             Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Speccial Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

3.             Astatement that a registered public accounting firm that is a member of theAmerican Institute of Certified Public Accountants has issued an attestationreport on such Reporting Servicer’s assessment of compliance with theApplicable Servicing Criteria as of and for such period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Daniel Marthinsen

DanielMarthinsen

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Randy Campney

v. Civil No. 06-cv-297-JD

Superintendent, Bare Hill

Correctional Facility

O R D E R

The respondent mistakenly filed a supplemental memorandum in

support of summary judgment, rather than a motion for summary

judgment, but docketed the filing as a “motion for summary

judgment,” (document no. 79). The court ordered the respondent

to file a motion for summary judgment to replace the supplemental

memorandum, which was done on December 22, 2009, as document no.

81. The first filing, document no. 79, however, remained

pending, docketed as a motion.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the “motion for summary

judgment,” document no. 79, is terminated.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

February 10, 2010

cc: Randy S. Campney, Sr., #76866, pro se

Stephen D. Fuller, Esquire

Susan P. McGinnis, Esquire

Elizabeth C. Woodcock, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00297-JD Document 83 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 1