alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v. 

EDWARD BROWN & ELAINE BROWN, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket no. 1:09-CR-30-GZS 

ORDER ON MOTION REQUESTING INTERVIEW 

On May 18, 2009, the Court received by fax a request to conduct an interview of 

Defendants Edward and Elaine Brown from Sean McDonald of WMUR-TV. The Court had the 

request docketed as a motion (Docket # 77) in order to notify the Defendants and the 

Government of WMUR-TV’s interview request and asked that the Government file an expedited 

response to the Motion. The Government filed its objection to the request (Docket # 85) on May 

20, 2009. In objecting to the request, the Government justifiably expresses concern that any 

interview of the Defendants this close to trial would improperly influence the jury pool, making 

it difficult for the Court to empanel an impartial jury. The Court notes that to-date it has 

received no direct requests from either of the Defendants (or their standby counsel) regarding 

media interviews although the request from WMUR-TV indicates that Defendants “have agreed 

to an interview.” 

 Jury selection in this matter is slated to begin in less than six weeks with trial 

commencing the following day. In considering the current request, the Court’s overriding 

concern is ensuring both Defendants are able to receive a fair and speedy trial by an impartial 

jury. The intersection of this concern and pretrial statements to the media are specifically 

addressed in District of New Hampshire Local Rules 57.1 and 83.8. Because both Defendants 

Case 1:09-cr-00030-GZS Document 86 Filed 05/21/09 Page 1 of 2
2 

are appearing pro se in this case, their own release of information is subject to Local Rule 

57.1(a). Given Defendants’ repeated frivolous filings on the docket as well as their repeated 

expressed unwillingness to follow the Court’s orders and rules, the Court cannot be assured that 

the Defendants would limit their comments in any interview in accordance with Local Rule 

57.1(a)(1-6). Absent such an assurance, the Court believes that a television interview in the 

weeks before trial would interfere with the Court’s ability to secure the Defendants a fair trial 

before an impartial jury. Therefore, the Court hereby DENIES WMUR-TV’s Motion Requesting 

Interview (Docket # 77) and, pursuant to District of New Hampshire Local Rule 83.8, hereby 

PROHIBITS any and all extrajudicial statements by all parties and witnesses prior to the 

completion of trial in this matter. 

SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ George Z. Singal 

 United States District Judge 

Dated this 21st day of May, 2009. 

Case 1:09-cr-00030-GZS Document 86 Filed 05/21/09 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02248-MSK-MEH

STEPHANIE SEO,

Plaintiff,

v.

VIKING COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., a Minnesota corporation,

Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.

DATED this 1st day of September, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02235-MSK-CBS Document 4 Filed 09/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2131 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2131

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 11, 2001

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To reauthorize the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 through 
               fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS.

    Section 805(a)(2) of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 
(22 U.S.C. 2431c(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``major''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TO SUPPORT REDUCTION OF DEBT 
              UNDER THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961 AND TITLE I OF 
              THE AGRICULTURAL TRADE DEVELOPMENT AND ASSISTANCE ACT OF 
              1954.

    (a) Reauthorization.--Section 806 of the Tropical Forest 
Conservation Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 2431d) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Years After Fiscal 
Year 2001.--For the cost (as defined in section 502(5) of the Federal 
Credit Reform Act of 1990) for the reduction of any debt pursuant to 
this section or section 807, there are authorized to be appropriated to 
the President the following:
            ``(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
            ``(2) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
            ``(3) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 808(a)(1)(D) of the Tropical 
Forest Conservation Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 2431f(a)(1)(D)) is amended 
by striking ``to appropriated under sections 806(a)(2) and 807(a)(2)'' 
and inserting ``to be appropriated under sections 806(a)(2), 807(a)(2), 
and 806(d)''.

SEC. 3. CHAIRPERSON OF THE ENTERPRISE FOR THE AMERICAS BOARD.

    Section 811(b)(2) of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 
(22 U.S.C. 2431i(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``from among the 
representatives appointed under section 610(b)(1)(A) of such Act or 
paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection'' and inserting ``and shall be the 
representative from the Department of State appointed under section 
610(b)(1)(A) of such Act''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 10, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
NO. 07-07-0456-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL C

	APRIL 9, 2008

	______________________________

	IN THE INTEREST OF K.B.F.J., K.D.J., AND K.J., CHILDREN

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 63,691-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	On March 20, 2007, Appellant, Erika Lizette Fierro, filed a Petition to Modify Parent- Child Relationship, which the trial court denied.  Fierro timely perfected this appeal from the trial court’s order and the appellate record has been filed.  Her brief was due to be filed on March 10, 2008, but has yet to be filed.  Also, no motion for extension of time was filed.  By letter from the Clerk of this Court dated March 17, 2008, Fierro was notified of the defect and directed to file the brief on or before March 27, 2008, noting that failure to comply might result in dismissal of the appeal pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  Fierro did not respond and the brief remains outstanding.

	Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court requiring a response or other action in a specified time.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b) and (c).

							Patrick A. Pirtle

							      Justice
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1981

Making emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for the

Department of Veterans Affairs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 24, 2001

Mr. EVANS (for himself and Mr. REYES) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Appropriations

A BILL

Making emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal

year 2001 for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Benefits Ad5 ministration Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

6 Act, 2001’’.

7 SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS.

8 The following sums are appropriated, out of any

9 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pro10 vide supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2001:
2

•HR 1981 IH

1 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

2 DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

3 GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES

4 For an additional amount for ‘‘General Operating

5 Expenses’’, $29,100,000, of which $26,600,000 shall be

6 for costs associated with the processing of claims for com7 pensation and pension benefits, and of which $2,500,000

8 shall be for costs associated with the processing of claims

9 for education benefits: Provided, That such amount is des10 ignated by the Congress as an emergency requirement

11 pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget

12 and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided fur13 ther, That such amount shall be available only to the ex14 tent that an official budget request, that includes designa15 tion of the entire amount of the request as an emergency

16 requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emer17 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985, is transmitted by the

18 President to the Congress.

Æ
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00084

- CR

T RAY D EMOND G AMBLES

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 213th District Court

of Tarrant County (1525624D)

May 9, 2019

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This cour t has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jennifer D. Marione, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[807 NYS2d 483]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 19, 2005, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a reinsurance supervisor from September 2001 until July 2004 and was responsible for maintaining the time records of employees within her department. She was terminated after her employer discovered an inaccuracy on her time sheet which indicated that she was present at work during a five-day period when she was in fact on vacation. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied her claim for unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she was terminated for misconduct. This appeal ensued.

We affirm. It is well settled that an employee’s falsification of time records may constitute disqualifying misconduct *(see Matter of Thomas [Commissioner of Labor],*12 AD3d 810, 810-811 [2004]; *Matter of Cole [Cornell Coop. Extension of Erie*County— *Commissioner of Labor],*2 AD3d 1242, 1243 [2003]). In the present case, it is undisputed that claimant provided the employer with a time sheet which falsely represented that she was present at work during a time when she was on vacation. Claimant’s assertion that the mistake was a mere clerical error she made without any intention of deceiving the employer presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see *Matter of Newkirk [Commissioner of Labor],*15 AD3d 827 [2005]).

Peters, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 9Federal Reserve Bank of: MinneapolisFilings received during the week ending May 25, 2013FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodOLIVER BANCORPORATION, INC.                                                                                             CICChange in Control notice by Devon Joan Goetz, Mandan, North Dakota, to acquire 25 percent or more of the shares of Oliver Bancorporation, Inc., Center, North Dakota, and thereby indirectly gain control of Security First Bank of North Dakota, New Salem, North Dakota.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not availableOLIVER BANCORPORATION, INC.                                                                                             CICChange in Control notice by Sarah Marie Getzlaff, Bismarck, North Dakota, to retain voting shares of Oliver Bancorporation, Inc., Center, North Dakota, which owns Security First Bank of North Dakota, New Salem, North Dakota, and thereby join the Goetz family group which controls 25% or more of Oliver Bancorporation, Inc.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not available
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-15-00036-CR 

DESIREE NICOLE ROMERO, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 100th District Court 

Carson County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 4898, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding 

 

June 22, 2015 

 

ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

Desiree Nicole Romero, appellant, appeals her conviction for possession of 

marihuana. Appellant timely perfected her appeal. The clerk’s record was filed on April 

16, 2015, while the reporter’s record was filed on April 21, 2015. Appellant’s brief was 

due on May 21, 2015. No brief was filed. On June 1, 2015, appellant’s counsel was 

notified by letter that the brief was overdue and that unless appellant’s brief was filed on 

or before June 11, 2015, the appeal would be abated. To date, no appellant’s brief 

has been filed.
2

Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 100th District 

Court of Carson County (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial 

court shall determine the following:

1. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; 

2. whether appellant is indigent;

3. whether appellant has been denied the effective assistance of counsel 

 due to counsel’s failure to file a timely appellate brief. See Ex parte 

 Briggs, 187 S.W.3d 458, 467 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding "a reasonably 

 competent attorney--regardless of whether he is retained or appointed--must 

 seek to advance his client's best defense in a reasonably competent 

 manner"); and

4. why a timely appellate brief has not been filed on behalf of appellant. 

The trial court is also directed to enter such orders necessary to address the 

aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a 

supplemental record and cause that record to be filed with this court by July 22, 2015. If 

it is determined that appellant is indigent and has been denied the effective assistance 

of counsel, the trial court may appoint him new counsel; the name, address, and phone 

number of any new counsel appointed shall be included in the aforementioned findings. 

Should further time be needed to perform these tasks, then same must be requested 

before July 22, 2015. 

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
38

C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans

Percent

Other operating Intermediate non-real- Long-term real

Quarter loans1estate loans estate loans

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

2003: Q1... 6.5 6.4 6.1

 Q2... 6.3 6.2 5.9

 Q3... 6.2 6.1 5.7

 Q4... 6.1 6.1 5.7

2004: Q1... 6.3 6.3 5.8

 Q2... 6.4 6.3 6.0

 Q3... 6.6 6.5 6.2

 Q4... 6.8 6.8 6.4

2005: Q1... 7.1 7.1 6.7

 Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2003: Q1... 7.0 6.9 6.4

 Q2... 6.9 6.8 6.3

 Q3... 6.7 6.6 6.1

 Q4... 6.7 6.6 6.2

2004: Q1... 6.7 6.6 6.1

 Q2... 6.7 6.6 6.1

 Q3... 7.3 6.8 6.4

 Q4... 7.3 7.1 6.6

2005: Q1... 7.5 7.3 6.8

 Twelfth (San Francisco) Federal Reserve District (AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA)

2003: Q1... 5.8 6.0 6.2

 Q2... 5.2 5.3 5.2

 Q3... 5.1 5.3 5.6

 Q4... 4.6 4.9 5.7

2004: Q1... 5.8 6.2 6.3

 Q2... 6.0 6.2 6.6

 Q3... 6.2 6.6 6.8

 Q4... 6.7 7.0 6.9

2005: Q1... 7.1 7.3 7.3

 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and

feeding of livestock (including poultry).

 * 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.
#### Crum and Foster Insurance Co., as Subrogee of Pride Products Corp., Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.

[811 NYS2d 735]

In a subrogation claim to recover damages paid by the plaintiff to its insureds, the State of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Mignano, *644J.), dated September 9, 2004, as, on the court’s own motion made upon notice, granted the claimant leave to serve and file a properly verified claim within 30 days.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the provision of the order dated September 9, 2004, which granted the claimant leave to serve and file a properly verified claim is deleted.

The instant claim is for property damages and damages for personal injuries incurred in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on June 1, 2001. In a prior order dated February 18, 2004, and filed March 4, 2004, the claimant was granted leave to file a late claim within 30 days of the filing of that order. No appeal was taken from that order.

The claimant filed the late claim on April 8, 2004, more than 30 days after the filing of the order on March 4, 2004. By letter dated April 8, 2004, the Attorney General elected to treat the claim as a nullity pursuant to CPLR 3022 on the ground that it was not properly verified.

No further action was taken by the claimant. By order to show cause dated July 7, 2004, the Court of Claims, on its own motion, directed the parties to submit papers so it could determine whether the claimant complied with Court of Claims Act § 11. After the parties made their submissions, the Court of Claims, in an order dated September 9, 2004, dismissed the claim filed in April 2004. The claimant took no appeal from that provision.

The order dated September 9, 2004, further directed the claimant to serve and file a properly verified claim within 30 days. The appellant claims that the Court of Claims improperly granted this relief since the three-year statute of limitations for claims for personal injuries and property damages *(see*CPLR 214) expired before July 7, 2004, when the Court of Claims on its own motion directed the parties to submit papers so it could determine whether the claimant complied with Court of Claims Act § 11.

Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) provides that a motion for leave to serve a late claim may not be entertained after the statute of limitations for a “like claim against a citizen of the state” has expired *(see Oakley v State of New York,*283 AD2d 469 [2001]). Since the three-year statute of limitations for causes of action to recover property damages and damages for personal injuries expired before July 7, 2004, the Court of Claims improperly granted the claimant relief. Cozier, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 08-cr-50-01-SM

Jabar Billingsley

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 11) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the July 2008 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver

of Speedy Trial Rights not later than May 27, 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 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

Case 1:08-cr-00050-SM Document 12 Filed 05/21/08 Page 1 of 2
2

the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: June 25, 2008 at 4:30 PM 

Jury Selection: July 8, 2008 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

May 21, 2008 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Arnold Huftalen, Esq.

 Michael Ramsdell, Esq.

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00050-SM Document 12 Filed 05/21/08 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.01

                            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 Eventemp Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2003 ("Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to knowledge:

         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.

Dated: November 25, 2003                  /s/ Keith D. Spickelmier
                                          ------------------------
                                          Keith D. Spickelmier
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          Chief Financial Officer