alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1It should be noted that petitioner filed a nearly identical

action in this Court in 2006, seeking the same relief sought here

and brought against the same defendants. See Bromley v. State of

Utah, Civ. No. 06-cv-181-JD. That case was dismissed without

prejudice when Bromley failed to prosecute the matter.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven L. Bromley

v. Civil No. 08-cv-161-JL

State of Utah, et al.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 Petitioner has sued the State of Utah and several of its

officers who have garnished his wages in New Hampshire,

purportedly for child support. Petitioner alleges that he was

denied due process and that the garnishment order was obtained

without any notice or opportunity to be heard, all in violation

of 15 U.S.C. § 1673. He seeks a temporary restraining order.1

I recommend that the temporary restraining order be denied

because at this point Bromley has neither shown irreparable

injury nor certified in writing the efforts made to give notice

of the injunctive request to the defendants or any reasons why

Case 1:08-cv-00161-JL Document 3 Filed 09/23/08 Page 1 of 3
2Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) states, in relevant part, as follows:

[T]he court may issue a temporary restraining 

order without written or oral notice to the 

adverse party or its attorney only if: (A) 

specific facts in an affidavit or a verified 

complaint clearly show that immediate and 

irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to 

the movant before the adverse party can be heard 

in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney 

certifies in writing any efforts made to give 

notice and the reasons why it should not be 

required.

2

notice should not be required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).2 I

further recommend that a preliminary injunction hearing be set

and that petitioner be ordered to serve his pleading, a copy of

this report, and a copy of the scheduling order at least seven

(7) days prior to the hearing. Because Bromley is proceeding in

this matter in forma pauperis, he is entitled to have the United

State’s Marshal’s office serve the defendants. Accordingly, I

direct the Clerk’s office to forward to the United States

Marshal’s office copies of this Report and Recommendation, the

complaint (document no. 1), and the scheduling order for the

preliminary injunction hearing, for service on the defendants.

Any objections to this report and recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

Case 1:08-cv-00161-JL Document 3 Filed 09/23/08 Page 2 of 3
3

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Committee v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992);

United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: September 23, 2008

cc: Steven L. Bromley, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00161-JL Document 3 Filed 09/23/08 Page 3 of 3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Amauris Bautista, Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 647]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), rendered October 23, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of gang assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Although defendant made a CPL 330.30 (1) motion to set aside the verdict, that motion raised different issues from those raised on appeal, and did not constitute a CPL 330.30 (2) motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of jury misconduct. Accordingly, his present claim of jury misconduct is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would nevertheless find no reason to reverse the conviction or remand for a hearing. According to a *342juror’s letter to the court, another juror had mentioned to the jury that third-degree assault, which the court had submitted as a lesser included offense, was a misdemeanor and carried only a fine. Defendant claims that this constituted a juror’s introduction of information outside the record. However, the gist of defendant’s claim is not that the jury considered evidence outside the record in deciding defendant’s guilt or innocence, but merely that one or more jurors may have violated the court’s instruction not to consider punishment. Therefore, defendant’s claim is an impermissible attempt to probe into the jury’s deliberative process, and it does not fall under the narrow exception for improper influence *(see People v Maragh,*94 NY2d 569, 573 [2000]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying youthful offender treatment, given that defendant was an active participant in a premeditated and brutal crime. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.
(January 24, 2006)

#### Aimco Chelsea Land, LLC, et al., Appellants, v Joan R. Bassey et al., Respondents.

[807 NYS2d 317]

In an action, inter alia, to recover the proceeds of an escrow fund, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated August 26, 2004, as denied those branches of their motion which were for entry of a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5016 to include an award of an attorney’s fee and prejudgment interest.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On a prior appeal, this Court decided that the plaintiffs were entitled to have granted only that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment seeking release of a $250,000 escrow fund, with accrued interest *(see Aimco Chelsea Land v Bassey,*6 AD3d 367 [2004]). No other issues were briefed by the parties therein. As to the merits of the plaintiffs’ contentions on this appeal, they fail to demonstrate their entitlement to the relief they sought, in the form of prejudgment interest and an award of an attorney’s fee *(see*CPLR 5001 [a]; *Maliner-Colvin v 85-10 34th Ave. Apt. Corp.,*284 AD2d 434 [2001]; *Oliveri v Carter,*256 AD2d 393, 394 [1998]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the appellants’ motion which were for entry of a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5016 to include an award of an attorney’s fee and prejudgment interest. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
CONSENT OF EXPERTS and COUNSEL


CONSENT of INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We   consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in   the
Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No. 2-83269) pertaining  to
the  1979 Long-term Incentive Plan, the 1982 Incentive  Stock
Option  Plan  and  Performance  Dividend  Plan,  Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 2-89499) pertaining to the 1984 Long-
term Incentive Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-
20503)  pertaining  to  the  1987 Long-term  Incentive  Plan,
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-33623) pertaining  to
the Retirement Savings Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 33-44423) pertaining to the 1991 Long-term Incentive Plan
and Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-56403) pertaining
to  the  1994 Long-term Incentive plan of Cincinnati Milacron
Inc.  of our report dated February 13, 1997, with respect  to
the  consolidated financial statements and schedule  included
in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Cincinnati Milacron Inc.
for the year ended December 28, 1996.



                                /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP




Cincinnati, Ohio
March 18, 1997
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1761 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1761

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and one

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
8588 Richmond Highway in Alexandria, Virginia, as the ``Herb Harris Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 8588 
Richmond Highway in Alexandria, Virginia, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Herb Harris Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Herb Harris Post Office 
Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our report included in this Form 10-K into the following Registration
Statements of Lafarge Corporation previously filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission: (i) Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 2-92414,
(ii) Registration Statement on Form S-8, Form 33-9813, (iii) Registration
Statement on Form S-8, File No. 33-32645, (iv) Registration Statement on Form
S-3, File No. 33-32644 (which also constitutes Post-Effective Amendment No. 6
to Registration Statement on Form S-1, File No. 2-82548), (v) Registration
Statement on Form S-8, File No. 33-20865, (vi) Registration Statement on Form
S-3, File No. 33-46093 (which also constitutes Post-Effective Amendment No. 7
of Registration Statement on Form S-1, File No. 2-82548), and (vii)
Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 33-51873.




                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
 

Washington, D.C.
March 27, 1997
#### J. Guy GRIFFITH, Louis V. Beck and Nathan N. Stain, Appellants, v. Jacob SHER, Samuel C. Levenson, Thomas W. Benner, Hattie S. Levenson and Laurence S. Levenson, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

Jan. 21, 1955.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1** **CERTIFICATION    OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**     I, Richard M. Rieser, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of First    Oak Brook Bancshares, Inc. (the “Registrant”), do    hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as    adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act    of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:     (1) the Annual Report on    Form 10-K    of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an    exhibit (the “Report”), fully complies with the    requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange    Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Registrant. /s/  RICHARD    M. RIESER, JR.    Richard M. Rieser, Jr.    Chief Executive Officer     March 9, 2006
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Daniel L.
Scharre, the Chief Executive Officer of Larscom Incorporated (the Company),
and Donald W. Morgan, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the Periodic
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company
for the period covered by the Periodic Report.

Dated:    May 12, 2003

|                                                               |  |                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Daniel L. ScharreDaniel L. Scharre
Chief Executive Officer |  | /s/ Donald W. MorganDonald W. Morgan
Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

ISONICS CORPORATION

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

Principal Financial Officer

To my knowledge: the quarterly report onForm 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2007, containing financialstatements for the period then ended, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934; and the information contained inthe Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Isonics Corporation for the periodspresented.

March 19,2007
| /s/ Kenneth J. Deane                          |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Kenneth J. Deane, Chief Financial Officer and |
| Principal Financial Officer                   |

 

----
Order entered January 25, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01467-CV

DWAN MILLIGAN, Appellant

V.

HP TEXAS I LLC C/O PATHLIGHT PROPERTY MGT, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 005-03165-2018

ORDER

Before the Court is Deputy District Clerk Sharon Howard’s January 22, 2019 request for 

extension of time to file the clerk’s record. As the clerk’s record has been filed, we DENY the 

request as moot. 

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-64-SM

Alfred Kozloski

O R D E R

Defendant Alfred Kozloski has filed a motion to continue the trial 

(document no.10). Trial has been rescheduled for the October 2008 trial period. 

 Defendant Kozloski shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than

August 4, 2008. On the filing of such waiver, the 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 defendants in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: October 1, 2008 at 4:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: October 7, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:08-cr-00064-SM Document 11 Filed 07/23/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

___________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

July 23, 2008 

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Alfred Rubega, Esq.

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00064-SM Document 11 Filed 07/23/08 Page 2 of 2
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 Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alvin J. Catz, Chief Financial Officer of Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350,
as adopted pursuant to (S) 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund,
LLC.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Alvin J. Catz                              
|Alvin J. Catz                                  
|Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director
|                                               
|November 8, 2005                               



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC and will retained by Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### CITY OF SCRANTON v. ÆTNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO.

No. 6514.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Feb. 8, 1938.

Jerome I. Myers, and John R. Edwards, both of Scranton, Pa., for appellant.

Reese H. Harris, and O’Malley, Hill, Harris & Harris, all of Scranton, Pa., for appellee.

Before BUFFINGTON, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and DICKINSON, District Judge. ■

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In this case it appears that George Deckelnick was treasurer of the City of Scranton and gave a bond to the city with the 2Etna' Casualty & Surety Company as surety, conditioned that he “shall pay over to the persons authorized by law to receive the city’s money that may come into his hands during said term as provided by law.” By Act of March 7, 1901, P.L. 20, art. 7; 53 P.S.Pa. § 8795, the state of Pennsylvania, as applicable to the City of Scranton, provided that its city treasurer “shall make daily deposits of all'moneys received by him in such banks or institutions as may be designated by councils.” It further appears said treasurer fully complied therewith by depositing in banks selected by the city all moneys received by him. Unfortunately these banks failed. Thereupon the city demanded from the treasurer the sums due by the depository banks, under the clause in the surety bond which provided “and at the expiration of said term * * * shall turn over all city records and property which may come into his hands,” and this demand being refused, the city brought this suit against the surety, a corporate citizen of Connecticut. By stipulation, the jury was waived and the case was tried by the judge who entered judgment for the surety, thereupon the city took this appeal.

As quoted above, the surety bond was to be released if the treasurer deposited the city money in city designated banks. This the treasurer did; consequently, the obligation of the surety was complied with. The authorities cited by the judge support his holding. So regarding, the judgment below is affirmed. The facts of this case are wholly different from those in Commonwealth v. Baily, 129 Pa. 480, 10 A. 764.
#### MONTALDO INS. AGENCY, Inc. v. BONCK.

No. 19459.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Jan. 3, 1950.

Charles E. Richards, New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellee.

Steeg & Morrison, New Orleans, for defendant and appellant.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal comes from the First City Court of New Orleans. Plaintiff sued for and recovered judgment against defendant for $210.80, the alleged amount due by defendant for certain insurance premiums.. The judgment was signed on November 9, 1949.

On Monday, November 21, 1949, the tenth day after the signing of the judg*556ment, excluding Sundays from computation, defendant moved for and was granted a devolutive appeal, conditioned upon liis furnishing bond with good and solvent surety according to law in the sum of $25.-00. The appeal bond, however, was not filed in the court below until Wednesday, November 23, which was the twelfth day, exclusive of Sundays, from the .day on which the judgment was signed.

In this Court the plaintiff-appellee moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that defendant did not timely file the appeal bond.

There is no doubt that the motion to dismiss should prevail. Act No. 219 of 1932, which regulates the practice before the City Courts of Louisiana, in cities of over one hundred thousand inhabitants, in cases where said courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts of all suits for moneyed demands over $100.00 and not exceeding $300.00, provides: “ * * * Appeals shall be allowed within ten days, exclusive of Sundays, from the signing of the judgment, on giving bond, according tb law, in a sum exceeding by one-half the amount of money judgments, in case of suspensive appeal, and in a sum to be fixed by the Judge, in case of devol-utive appeal, and other than money judgments ; * * *.”

This language means not only that the application for the appeal must be made within ten days, but also that the bond required by law must be filed within that delay.

In Bannister v. Chisesi & Longo, La.App., 5 So.2d 145, we said: “It is well settled that an order of appeal'has no effect unless the appeal bond required as a condition on which the order is granted is filed within the time required by law for taking an appeal. * * * ” See also the many cases cited therein.

For the above reasons, it is ordered that this appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.

Motion sustained; appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CEO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Ronald J. Buschur, Chief Executive Officer of Powerwave
Technologies, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



| |  |                      |  |  |  |     |  |                                      
| |  | -------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
| |  |                      |  | 
| |  | Date: August 8, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ RONALD J. BUSCHUR                
| |  |                      |  |  |  |     |  | Ronald J. Buschur                    
| |  |                      |  |  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  |                      |  |  |  |     |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.