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. 08-cr-07-01/02-SM

Wanjira Taliaferro and

Veronica Melendez

O R D E R

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

trial is granted (document 19). Trial has been rescheduled for the October 2008

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

later than June 30, 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 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: September 26, 2008 at 3:30 p.m.

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

Case 1:08-cr-00007-SM Document 20 Filed 06/19/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

June 19, 2008

cc: Robert Daniels, Esq.

Jeffrey Levin, Esq. 

Michael Zaino, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00007-SM Document 20 Filed 06/19/08 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22264]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL08-63-000]


Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Michigan South Central Power 
Agency v. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; 
Notice of Meeting

September 17, 2008.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that 
members of its staff will meet with representatives of Michigan South 
Central Power Agency on Friday, September 19, 2008, to discuss matters 
at issue in this proceeding. The meeting will take place from 10 a.m. 
until 12 p.m. in Conference Room 81-62 of the Commission's offices, 888 
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Commission conferences and meetings are accessible under section 
508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations 
please send an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d2c2e2e283e3e242f24212439340d2b283f2e632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8aebe9e9eff9f9e3e8e3e6e3fef3caeceff8e9a4ede5fc">[email protected]</span></a> or call toll free 1-
866-3372 (voice) or 202-208-8659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 
with the required accommodations.
    For further information, please contact Jeffrey Hitchings in the 
Commission's Office of Energy Market Regulation: (202) 502-6042 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a8c2cdcecedacdd186c0c1dccbc0c1c6cfdbe8cecddacb86cfc7de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="127877747460776b3c7a7b66717a7b7c756152747760713c757d64">[email protected]</span></a>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-22264 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>
#### Melvyn Kaufman et al., Respondents, v Elizabeth Kehler et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[808 NYS2d 764]

In an action to enforce a restrictive covenant and recover damages for its breach, the defendants Elizabeth Kehler and Dean Kehler appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered December 15, 2004, as denied that branch of their motion which was for sum*766mary judgment dismissing the second cause of action, seeking an injunction, and failed to search the record and grant them summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, seeking damages for breach of a restrictive covenant.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs to the appellants, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action is granted, and upon searching the record, summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action is awarded to the appellants, and the complaint is dismissed.

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for an injunction. On a prior appeal in this matter, this Court determined that, while the appellants made a prima facie showing that the doctrine of unclean hands bars the plaintiffs from seeking injunctive relief, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiffs, in fact, violated the same restrictive covenant the plaintiffs seek to enforce against the appellants *(see Kaufman v Kehler,*5 AD3d 564 [2004]). The new evidence submitted on the appellants’ motion conclusively established that the plaintiffs did, in fact, violate the same restrictive covenant they seek to enforce against the appellants. The appellants are therefore entitled to summary judgment *(see Reeves v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.,*117 AD2d 789 [1986]; *see also Weiss v Flushing Natl. Bank,*176 AD2d 797 [1991]).

The plaintiffs’ further arguments regarding the affirmative defense of unclean hands were raised and decided on the prior appeal, and may not be raised again here *(see Martin v City of Cohoes,*37 NY2d 162, 165 [1975]; *Johnson v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport,*288 AD2d 269 [2001]; *Matter of Parsons,*78 AD2d 876 [1980]).

Moreover, the materials submitted in support of and in opposition to the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment demonstrated that the plaintiffs sustained no compensable harm as a result of the appellants’ alleged breach of the restrictive covenant *(see Binghamton Plaza v Gilinsky,*32 AD2d 994 [1969]). Accordingly, upon searching the record, we award the appellants summary judgment dismissing the cause of action seeking damages for breach of the restrictive covenant *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]; *Osborne v Zornberg,*16 AD3d 643, 645 [2005]; *Centre Great Neck v Rite Aid Corp.,*292 AD2d 484 [2002]; *QDR Consultants & Dev. Corp. v Colonia Ins. Co.,*251 AD2d 641, 643-644 [1998]). Prudenti, P.J., H. Miller, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00347-PAB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. ALFREDO MIRALDA-CABRERRA,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER SETTING CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING

_____________________________________________________________________

Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer

A Notice of Disposition was filed on October 12, 2011 [Docket No. 12]. A

Change of Plea hearing is set for November 3, 2011 at 8:00 a.m. Counsel for the

parties shall email a courtesy copy of all change of plea documents separately to my

chambers and to the Probation Department not later than 48 hours before the change

of plea hearing. See D.C.COLO.LCrR 11.1C. On the date of the hearing, counsel shall

bring with them an original and one copy of the plea agreement and the statement in

advance. See D.C.COLO.LCrR 11.1F.

The Plea Agreement and Statement Relevant to Sentencing required by

D.C.COLO.LCrR 11.1C (in the form prescribed by Appendix J) shall include also a

separate section identifying each essential element required by law for the commission

of each criminal offense to which the defendant intends to enter a plea of guilty. It is

further

ORDERED that the Trial Preparation Conference previously scheduled for

November 3, 2011 at 8:00 a.m. is VACATED.

DATED October 13, 2011.

Case 1:11-cr-00347-PAB Document 13 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02265-REB-KLM

VICTORIA CARBAJAL,

HEBER MARTIN CARBAJAL, and

DEAN CARBAJAL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WELLS FARGO, a corporation,

MELVA JACKSON, manager for Wells Fargo, in her individual capacity,

CARROL DWYER, supervisor for Wells Fargo, in her individual capacity, and

IRMA LORENA HOLGUIN, lead teller for Wells Fargo, in her individual capacity, and

UNKNOWN EMPLOYEE, teller or banker for Wells Fargo, in her individual capacity,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intent and Motion for

Leave to Amend Complaint [Docket No. 20; Filed October 14, 2011] (the “Motion”).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiffs failed to include a proposed Second Amended Complaint for Defendants’ and the

Court’s review. Plaintiffs may re-file a motion for leave to amend their Amended Complaint

[#12], and the motion must include the proposed Second Amended Complaint and must

comply with the applicable Federal and Local Rules.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any Second Amended Complaint purporting to

bring claims on behalf of all three Plaintiffs must be signed by each Plaintiff individually.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). The Motion at issue is signed only by Plaintiffs Dean Carbajal

and Victoria Carbajal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs must provide the Clerk’s Office with their

current addresses. The address listed with Plaintiff Victoria Carbajal’s signature in the

Motion does not match the address for Plaintiff Victoria Carbajal on the docket. Any

change of address must be noted in writing and mailed to the Clerk’s Office: Clerk of the

United States District Court, 901 19th St., Denver, CO 80294.

Dated: October 17, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02265-REB-KLM Document 23 Filed 10/17/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
|        | Signature                        | Title                              |
|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                                      |                             |
|                                      | /s/ Lloyd D. Ankeny              |                                    |
|                                      | Lloyd      D. Ankeny             | Director and Chairman of the Board |
|                                      |                             |
|                                      | /s/ Michael J.      Bragg        |                                    |
|                                      | Michael      J. Bragg            | Director                           |
|                                      |                             |
|                                      | /s/ Duane C.      McDougall |                                    |
|                                      | Duane      C. McDougall          | Director                           |
|                                      |                             |
|                                      | /s/ Steven J. Oliva              |                                    |
|                                      | Steven      J. Oliva             | Director                           |
|                                      |                             |
|                                      | /s/ Steven N.      Spence   |                                    |
|                                      | Steven      N. Spence            | Director                           |
|                                      |                             |
|                                      | /s/ David J. Truitt              |                                    |
|                                      | David      J. Truitt             | Director                           |
|                                      |                             |
|                                      | /s/ Nancy A. Wilgenbusch         |                                    |
|                                      | Nancy      A. Wilgenbusch, PhD.  | Director                           |

----
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00401-CV

ANDREW GOODFRIEND APPELLANT

V.

TODD A. MEAGHER & MARILYN D. 

GARNER, TRUSTEE FOR THE 

BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF TODD 

ENTERTAINMENT, LLC

APPELLEES

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

FROM THE 67TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered appellant’s “Unopposed Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” 

It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss 

the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution 

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ. 

DELIVERED: March 21, 2013

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                              
                                 Estimated volume                  Share of total non-real-estate farm loans
                               (millions of dollars)                               (percent)
                      _______________________________________     ____________________________________________

Year                  Total     Q1      Q2       Q3       Q4      Total      Q1        Q2        Q3       Q4
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                              
1995......    |          51      -2      14       13       25      .131     -.004      .039     .032      .061
1996......    |          95      16      27       24       30      .240      .039      .070     .058      .071
1997......    |          93       6      19       19       50      .230      .014      .049     .045      .112
1998......    |          87       4      15       24       45      .198      .008      .036     .051      .095
1999......    |         126      18      37       35       36      .280      .040      .086     .078      .080
2000......    |         108      11      17       34       45      .259      .027      .041     .075      .098
2001......    |         308      67      53      140       48      .656      .142      .118     .294      .101
2002......    |         221      40      50       58       73      .471      .085      .114     .124      .157
2003......    |         175      34      35       48       58      .382      .074      .080     .108      .128
2004......    |         129      28      17       46       38      .284      .062      .039     .099      .081
2005......    |          59       8      16       12       24      .124      .017      .035     .026      .048
2006......    |        n.a.       9       7     n.a.     n.a.      n.a.      .018      .015     n.a.      n.a.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude
foreign results for large banks that report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal definition of agricultural loans.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J. Carey

v. Civil No. 09-cv-91-PB

Larry Blaisdell, Warden,

Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility

O R D E R

Before the court for preliminary review is pro se petitioner

William J. Carey’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (document

no. 1), filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Rule 4 of the

Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings (“§ 2254 Rule”) (requiring

initial review to determine whether the petition is facially

valid and may be served); see also United States District Court

for the District of New Hampshire Local Rules (“LR”) 4.3(d)

(authorizing the magistrate judge to preliminarily review pro se

pleadings). 

As explained more fully in a Report and Recommendation filed

simultaneously herewith, I have determined that petitioner is in

state custody and appears to have exhausted the state remedies

which are available for the equal protection and due process

claims identified in the Report and Recommendation as claims II

and III. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) and (b) (providing that the

Case 1:09-cv-00091-PB Document 7 Filed 06/04/09 Page 1 of 3
2

writ “shall not be granted” unless petitioner is in state custody

and has exhausted all available or effective state remedies). I

have recommended dismissal of all other claims asserted in the

petition as noncognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. I, therefore,

order service of the petition on respondent. See § 2254 Rule 4.

Accordingly, the petition shall be served upon Larry

Blaisdell, Warden, Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility,

which shall file an answer or other pleading in response to the

allegations made therein. See id. (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 and the habeas petition (document no. 1). 

Respondent shall 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

Case 1:09-cv-00091-PB Document 7 Filed 06/04/09 Page 2 of 3
3

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

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

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

SO ORDERED. 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 4, 2009 

cc: William J. Carey, pro se

Case 1:09-cv-00091-PB Document 7 Filed 06/04/09 Page 3 of 3
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20717

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SAUL NIEVES MORALES,

DefendantAppellant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CR-137-1

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

August 31, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM: *

Saul Nieves Morales appeals his conviction for aiding and abetting the possession with intent

to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Morales argues that (1) his seizure was illegal as it

was based on neither suspicion nor probable cause; (2) the district court should have suppressed all

evidence seized from the apartment where he was staying “because the government failed to sustain

its burden of demonstrating that the consent to search the residence was freely and voluntarily given;”

and (3) the district court erred in refusing to reduce his offe nse level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 for

minor participation.

The record reflects that there was a reasonable basis for Drug Enforcement Administration

officers to suspect that Morales was involved in criminal activity that had occurred or was about tooccur inside the residence and that his detention was not unlawful. See United States v. Sokolow

,

490 U.S . 1, 7, (1989). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Morales freely and

voluntarily consented to the search of the apartment. See United States v. Morales , 171 F.3d 978,

981 (5th Cir. 1999). Nor did the district court clearly err in finding that minor-participant status was

not warranted under the circumstances of this case. S ee United States v. Brown , 54 F.3d 234, 241

(5th Cir. 1995)

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 09-cr-34-01-JL

Michael Giles

O R D E R

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

13 ) filed by defendant is granted; Final Pretrial is rescheduled

to August 31, 2010 at 4:00pm; Trial is continued to the two-week

period beginning September 8, 2010, 9:30am.

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)(7)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

_______________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Date: June 16, 2010

cc: Jonathan R. Saxe, AFD

Donald A. Feith, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:09-cr-00034-JL Document 14 Filed 06/16/10 Page 1 of 1
5

A.1. Number of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersMillions

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid1998...... 2.10 .15 .18 1.39 .17 .22 1.20 .45 .33 .12 1999...... 1.96 .14 .16 1.32 .16 .18 1.09 .44 .32 .11 2000...... 1.91 .11 .17 1.30 .13 .19 1.09 .44 .28 .10 2001...... 1.76 .13 .16 1.08 .13 .26 .97 .40 .28 .11 2002...... 1.95 .11 .15 1.34 .12 .23 1.11 .42 .31 .12 2003...... 1.66 .12 .12 1.14 .13 .15 .91 .36 .29 .10 2004...... 1.64 .09 .13 1.15 .13 .14 .87 .36 .29 .12 2005...... 1.47 .10 .11 1.02 .11 .14 .76 .32 .27 .12 2006...... 1.37 .11 .11 .92 .11 .11 .57 .36 .30 .13 2007...... 1.34 .09 .11 .90 .12 .13 .51 .38 .32 .14 2008...... 1.32 .07 .10 .91 .08 .15 .46 .38 .32 .16 2009...... 1.27 .09 .08 .87 .09 .14 .46 .36 .31 .13 2006: Q4... 1.13 .12 .10 .73 .08 .09 .42 .31 .29 .12 2007: Q1... 1.19 .08 .10 .79 .11 .12 .42 .32 .29 .17  Q2... 1.56 .08 .12 1.09 .13 .14 .63 .45 .35 .13  Q3... 1.25 .08 .08 .84 .12 .13 .49 .36 .28 .11  Q4... 1.37 .11 .15 .86 .10 .14 .50 .38 .34 .15 2008: Q1... 1.25 .09 .10 .83 .09 .13 .41 .36 .30 .18  Q2... 1.45 .07 .11 1.01 .10 .16 .54 .38 .36 .17  Q3... 1.22 .03 .08 .87 .09 .14 .45 .37 .28 .13  Q4... 1.38 .10 .12 .93 .06 .17 .46 .40 .36 .17 2009: Q1... 1.31 .09 .09 .89 .10 .15 .43 .36 .33 .19  Q2... 1.31 .08 .09 .91 .09 .13 .49 .37 .32 .13  Q3... 1.27 .07 .06 .92 .07 .14 .52 .36 .29 .11  Q4... 1.21 .12 .09 .76 .11 .13 .40 .38 .31 .12 2010: Q1... 1.17 .09 .08 .79 .08 .13 .40 .31 .31 .16  Q2... 1.33 .09 .11 .89 .10 .15 .49 .38 .33 .14  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.