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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-223-01-SM

Jerry A. Shanahan

O R D E R

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

trial is granted (document no. 49). Trial has been rescheduled for the June 

2008 trial period. Defendant Shanahan shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than March 7, 2008. 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 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: May 20, 2008 at 3:30 p.m.

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

Case 1:07-cr-00223-SM Document 51 Filed 02/25/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

February 25, 2008 

cc: Andrew Good, Esq.

Philip Cormier, Esq.

Peter Anderson, Esq.

William Morse, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00223-SM Document 51 Filed 02/25/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven L. Bromley

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

State of Utah

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated September 23, 2008, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

October 28, 2008 /s/ Joseph N. Laplante

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

cc: Steven L. Bromley, Pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00161-JL Document 12 Filed 10/28/08 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 23.1


<PAGE>   2





               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
First Charter Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements of First
Charter Corporation on Form S-4 (No. 333-95003), on Form S-3 (No. 333-60641) and
on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-54019, 333-54021, 333-54023, 33-60949, and 333-71497), of
our report dated January 16, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of First Charter Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999,
and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000,
included in the 2000 Annual Report on Form 10-K of First Charter Corporation.



                                                        KPMG LLP



Charlotte, North Carolina
March 23, 2001
Exhibit 23.1
                                                                 ------------


          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 We have issued our report dated April 2, 2007, accompanying the consolidated
 financial  statements  and  schedule  included  in  the  Annual  Report   of
 Carrington Laboratories, Inc.  on Form 10-K as of  and  for  the  year ended
 December 31, 2006.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by  reference  of
 said report in the Registration Statements  of Carrington Laboratories, Inc.
 on Form  S-8 (File  No.  333-118303  effective  August 17,  2004,  File  No.
 333-118304 effective August 17, 2004,  File No. 333-89760 effective  June 4,
 2002,  File No. 333-69372 effective September 14, 2001,  File No.  33-64403
 effective November 17, 1995, File No. 33-64405  effective November 17, 1995,
 File  No. 33-64407 effective November 17, 1995,  File No. 33-55920 effective
 December 18, 1992,  File  No. 33-50430  effective  August 4, 1992,  File No.
 33-42002 effective August 1, 1991, File No. 33-36041 effective July 30, 1990
 and File No. 33-22849  effective  June 30, 1988) and  Form  S-3  ( File  No.
 333-131735 effective April 7, 2006,  File  No.  33-60833  effective July 11,
 1995 and File No. 33-57360 effective February 17, 1993).


 WEAVER AND TIDWELL, L.L.P.

 Dallas, Texas
 April 2, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-86-PB

Phatsany Lae Syharath

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the 

trial scheduled for March 3, 2009, citing the need for additional

time to finalize a plea agreement or prepare for trial. The

government and co-defendants do not object to a continuance of

the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from March 3, 2009 to May 5, 2009. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy

trial.

Case 1:08-cr-00086-PB Document 34 Filed 02/23/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The February 18, 2009 final pretrial conference is continued

to April 20, 2009 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

February 23, 2009

cc: R. Brian Snow, Esq.

Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Michael Ramsdell, Esq.

Mark Irish, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00086-PB Document 34 Filed 02/23/09 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1906

To amend the Act that established the Pu’uhonua O Honaunau National

Historical Park to expand the boundaries of that park.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 17, 2001

Mrs. MINK (for herself and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To amend the Act that established the Pu’uhonua O

Honaunau National Historical Park to expand the

boundaries of that park.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF BOUNDARIES OF PU’UHONUA O

4 HONAUNAU NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

5 (a) EXPANSION.—The first section of the Act of July

6 26, 1955 (chapter 385; 16 U.S.C. 397), is amended by

7 adding at the end the following:

8 ‘‘PARCEL 4

9 ‘‘The lands within the boundaries depicted on the

10 map entitled ll and dated ll, consisting of approxi-
2

•HR 1906 IH

1 mately 805 acres, subject to such minor adjustment of

2 such boundaries as may be considered by the Secretary

3 of the Interior to be necessary.’’.

4 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—To ac5 quire lands and interests in lands within the boundaries

6 of the area added to Pu’uhonua O Honaunau National

7 Historical Park by subsection (a), there are authorized to

8 be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior

9 $20,000,000.

Æ
#### Tri-Global Management Corp., Respondent, v Charles Richardson et al., Defendants. J.P. Morgan Chase, Nonparty Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 638]

*601In an action, inter alia, to recover upon a personal guaranty, nonparty, J.P. Morgan Chase, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), entered February 18, 2005, which, upon an order of the same court dated January 14, 2005, granting the plaintiffs motion to hold J.E Morgan Chase in contempt for the disobedience of a restraining notice served upon J.E Morgan Chase pursuant to CFLR 5222, is in favor of the plaintiff and against J.E Morgan Chase in the principal sum of $19,671.80.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the order dated January 14, 2005, is vacated, and the motion is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs motion to hold J.E Morgan Chase (hereinafter Chase) in contempt for allegedly disobeying a restraining notice the plaintiff served upon Chase pursuant to CPLR 5222, as part of the plaintiffs ongoing efforts to enforce a judgment it obtained against the defendant Charles Richardson. The account the plaintiff sought to restrain was not included in a proper restraining notice issued pursuant to the requirements of CPLR 5222. Thus, Chase’s failure to freeze the account could not be the basis for a finding of contempt against it *(see*CPLR 5222 [b]).

In light of the foregoing determination, we need not address Chase’s remaining contentions. H. Miller, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William Edmondson

v. Civil No. 05-cv-445-JD

NH Department of Corrections,

Commissioner, et al.

O R D E R

 Plaintiff seeks a clarification of what he perceived as a

bench order on February 24, 2006. Attached is a “rough draft”

but correct transcript of the portion of the hearing sought to be

clarified. The transcript is clear. 

Granted (document no. 26) in part. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 2, 2006

cc: William Edmondson, pro se

 Mary E. Maloney, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00445-JD Document 30 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

United States of America

V .

Cong Duc Nguyen

Criminal No . 08-cr-152-01-JD

O R D E R

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

15) filed by defendant is granted .

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days . The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U .S .C . § 3161 (h) (8) (B) (iv) , for the

reasons set forth in the motion .

SO ORDERED .

/s/ Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

United States District Judge

Date : April 16, 200 9

cc : Michael Sheehan, Esq .

Jennifer Davis, Esq .

U .S . Marsha l

U .S . Probation

Case 1:08-cr-00152-JD Document 16 Filed 04/16/09 Page 1 of 1
#### LOUISIANA OIL REFINING CORPORATION v. J. P. DUHE.

No. 1193.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Oct. 5, 1933.

Burke & Smith, of New Iberia, for appellant.

C. Arthur Provost, of New Iberia, for ap-pellee.

ELLIOTT, Judge.

Louisiana Oil Refining Corporation claims of J. P. Duhe the sum of $453.46 as the balance due on an account.

Duhe for answer denies owing the amount claimed of him. There was judgment in favor of the plaintiff as prayed for. Defendant has appealed.

The evidence shows that the plaintiff sold and delivered carload lots of crude oil to the defendant; the various consignments amounting in the aggregate to $4,321.79. The defendant made payments on account at different times, in all amounting to $3,868.33. The defendant claims that the payments made leave nothing due the plaintiff; that plaintiff’s account, on which it has sued, contains an error to the extent of the amount claimed.

It appears to us that plaintiff’s account, as now made out and sued on, is correct, but did formerly contain error. The error consisted in the fact that a consignment, dated July 2, 1930, in amount $453.46, was at first, through error on the part of the plaintiff, not charged to the defendant, but to the Crystal Oil Refining Corporation. While the account, contained this error, defendant was sent a statement showing that the balance due by him to the plaintiff was $223.72. The defendant remitted this amount, and takes the position that this remittance settled his account in full.

The plaintiff subsequently discovered the error, which had been made in the way stated. The parties could not reach an agreement after considerable correspondence, and on the trial of the case defendant still insisted that he had paid all he owed. But we are satisfied from the evidence that error existed in plaintiff’s account against the defendant in the way and to the extent claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had the right, of course, to correct its account and charge the omitted consignment to the defendant. The defendant justly owes it. The lower court so decided; the judgment appealed from is correct.

The confused situation resulting from the error was calculated 'to lead to a dispute. It is our conclusion that the evidence shows the error beyond reasonable doubt, but plaintiff’s error is responsible for the controversy, and on that account we have decided to divide the costs between the parties. For these reasons the judgment appealed from is affirmed to the extent that it is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for $453.46, with interest as stated in the judgment, but it is ordered that one-half of the costs in both courts be paid by the plaintiff, and the other one-half by the defendant.
---

B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks Year
                  Estimated volume (billions of dollars)
                  Share of outstanding real estate farm loans (percent)Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q41993
          24
          2
          4
          7
          11
          .121
          .010
          .018
          .035
          .0541994
          10
          1
          1
          3
          6
          .048
          .003
          .003
          .013
          .0261995
          12
          0
          3
          6
          4
          .055
          -.001
          .011
          .027
          .0161996
          7
          0
          1
          2
          4
          .031
          .000
          .003
          .009
          .0171997
          16
          -1
          0
          3
          14
          .064
          -.003
          -.001
          .010
          .0541998
          6
          -1
          3
          0
          5
          .022
          -.004
          .009
          .000
          .0161999
          15
          0
          3
          5
          7
          .051
          -.001
          .011
          .015
          .0222000
          12
          -12
          3
          8
          14
          .037
          -.037
          .009
          .022
          .0402001
          42
          10
          9
          5
          17
          .123
          .030
          .027
          .014
          .0492002
          35
          8
          6
          5
          16
          .097
          .022
          .017
          .014
          .0412003
          32
          4
          6
          8
          14
          .082
          .010
          .015
          .021
          .0342004
          n.a.
          1
          5
          2
          n.a.
          n.a.
          .003
          .012
          .005
          n.a. Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: December 31, 2004
#### Gabrielle D. Nachman, Appellant, v Jenelo Corp. et al., Respondents.

[807 NYS2d 408]

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), dated January 5, 2005, as granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court had no authority to dismiss the complaint merely because the subject shareholders’ agreement contained a mandatory arbitration clause (see *Allied Bldg. Inspectors Intl. Union of Operating Engrs., Local Union No. 211, AFL-CIO v Office of Labor Relations of City of N.Y.,*45 NY2d 735, 738 [1978]). Rather, upon a proper and timely motion by the *594defendants pursuant to CPLR 7503 (a), the court could have stayed the action and directed the parties to arbitrate. In the six years this action has been pending, however, the defendants never moved for relief under CPLR 7503 (a). Instead, they answered the complaint, asserted a counterclaim, and even moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Under the circumstances, the defendants waived their right to arbitration *(see Grenadeir Parking Corp. v Landmark Assoc.,*294 AD2d 313 [2002]; *see also Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs.,*64 NY2d 261, 272 [1985]). Accordingly, the order must be reversed insofar as appealed from and the complaint reinstated. Cozier, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
#### Cornelius J. WOLF, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. H. A. THIBERGE PRINTING COMPANY, Ltd., Defendant and Appellant.

No. 16016.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

April 29, 1935.

Oliver S.. Livaudais, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Henry L. Garland, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

WESTEREIELD, Judge.

The defendant appeals from a judgment awarding a former employee $232.31, the amount of wages claimed to be due him. The suit is defended upon the ground that the sum claimed represents an advance in wages which the defendant agreed to pay to plaintiff shortly after the enactment of the National Recovery Act (48 Stat. 195) and conditioned upon profitable operation, which was confidently expected to result from the adoption of a “code of fair competition for the graphic arts and industries.”

The only difference between the parties to this litigation is upon the question of whether the amounts claimed as salary were to be unconditionally paid or not; the defendant insisting that it was not to be paid unless the company earned money, which it did not do. On the issue of fact thus presented, the court below found for the plaintiff. In addition to the respect due its judgment upon a question of fact, there is in the record the admission of the defendant’s managing officer and its bookkeeper that the increased amount of wages was credited to the account of plaintiff on the defendant’s books. More than that, when the plaintiff quit the defendant’s employ and demanded the accumulated salary, Mrs. Thiberge, secretary and treasurer of defendant company, offered to pay him $5 per month on account. She says: “* * * I said I would pay it if I was out of the hole and I could scrape up that much, but I couldn’t pay any more; if we made any profits he would have got paid, but we didn’t make any in 1933, we lost. Everybody thought the N. R. A. would do wonders, and if I made it I would be willing to pay him the extra money; I haven’t paid taxes since 1931.”

She claims that she would rather pay this small sum monthly than be sued and perhaps Would, but we find it inconsistent with the defense to the effect that no sum was due plaintiff unless and until the defendant company made a profit.

Our conclusion is that the judgment appealed from is correct, and it is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MoneyLogix
Group, Inc. for the three month period ending March 31, 2009, I, Majid
Haditaghi, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
MoneyLogix Group, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, that:




1.
  Such Annual Quarterly on Form 10-Q for the three months
ending March 31, 2009, 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 such Quarterly  Report on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended March  31, 2009, fairly
represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of MoneyLogix Group, Inc.




Dated:
May 11, 2009





MONEYLOGIX
      GROUP, INC.By:
                /s/ Majid
      HaditaghiMajid
      HaditaghiChief Executive
      Officer,
|  | 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 the      Company. |
|--|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November      15, 2010 |   | /s/ J. Bryant Kirkland III                      |   |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | J.      Bryant Kirkland III                     |   |
|                   |   | Vice      President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

----
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Donald W. Morgan, certify that:
     1.     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of LarscomIncorporated;
     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 report is being prepared;
               b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report, based on such evaluation; and
               c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal 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 theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
               a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control 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 control overfinancial reporting.
Date: November 11, 2003   By: /s/ Donald W. Morgan    Chief Financial Officer