alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1In the future, counsel should be aware that the court is

never offended when counsel provide legal authority to support

their position.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Robert Benjamin

DLC Services Corp.

v. Civil No. 08-cv-422-SM

Riley More & More Enterprises, LLC, et al

O R D E R

Defendant Manoukian moves to enforce the automatic

bankruptcy stay arising from his Chapter 11 filing to preclude

his deposition on December 11, 2009.1

It is well-established that stays pursuant to § 362(a)

are limited to debtors and do not encompass non-bankrupt codefendants . . . (citations omitted). . . Chapter 11, unlike

Chapter 13, contains no provision to protect non-debtors who

are jointly liable on a debt with the debtor.

Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America v. Butler,

803 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 1986). The automatic stay in bankruptcy

precludes discovery as to Manoukian but not as to any other

defendant. If Manoukian has information as to co-defendants, the

stay does not prevent discovery of that information. The stay is

Case 1:08-cv-00422-SM Document 103 Filed 12/10/09 Page 1 of 2
2

limited to him personally.

The motion (doc. no. 100) is granted to the extent set

forth.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: December 10, 2009

cc: All Counsel of Record

Case 1:08-cv-00422-SM Document 103 Filed 12/10/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William Dexter Miller, Jr .

V .

Strafford County Departmen t

of Corrections, Superintendent

Case No . 07-cv-38 8

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Marie Luise Miller brought the instant habeas corpus

petition, pursuant to 28 U .S .C . 5 2254, on behalf of her son,

William Dexter Miller, Jr . Ms . Miller requests her son be

transported to the courthouse for an immediate hearing on the

merits of the habeas corpus petition .

Leaving aside for the moment whether Ms . Miller has standing

to file this habeas petition on her son's behalf, LR 83 .6(b), the

filer has failed to properly exhaust the remedies in state court

and, as a result, this court is without jurisdiction over this

request . Thus, Ms . Miller's request to transport William Miller

for an immediate hearing and for habeas relief is denied without

prejudice and this case shall be administratively closed . Ms .

Miller is to provide a status report on her state court

exhaustion efforts every ninety (90) days .

SO ORDERED .

Date : ► Z,l 141fJ7

JamYs R~Muirhea d

Un/ted ates Magistrate Judge

cc : Marie Luise Miller

Case 1:07-cv-00388-SM Document 2 Filed 12/04/07 Page 1 of 1
December 17, 2003



Exhibit 10.1

IBM Credit LLC


December 17, 2003


 

Datatec Systems, Inc.

23 Madison Road

Fairfield, NJ  07004


Attention:Mr. Mark J. Hirschhorn, Chief Financial Officer

Reference:That certain Inventory and Working Capital Financing Agreement by and between Datatec Systems, Inc. ("Datatec") and IBM Credit LLC, formerly IBM Credit Corporation ("IBM Credit"), and dated as of November 10, 2000 (and as amended, supplemented or otherwise altered or modified from time to time through and including November 7, 2003, the "Agreement").






Dear Mr. Hirschhorn:


IBM Credit is in receipt of Datatec's draft financial statements for the period ending October 31, 2003 and has determined that Datatec has failed to meet certain financial covenants, including, without limitation, the following:


 

	
Covenant
	
Covenant Requirement
	
Actual

	
Net Profit After Tax to Revenue
	
Equal To Or Greater Than 0.1%
	
A Net Loss of $7,785,000

	
Operating Income to Interest Expense
	
Equal To Or Greater Than 1.25:1
	
An Operating Loss





As a result of the foregoing, IBM Credit declares Datatec to be in default of the Agreement effective immediately.


IBM Credit reserves any and all rights it now has or may have in the future.  Please be advised that it is IBM Credit's intent, pursuant to Section 9.3 of the Agreement to pursue all remedies available to it at law or in equity in asserting its claims against Datatec.


Please contact me at 914/765-6259 or Bruce Gordon at 914/765-6232 if you have any questions or you wish to discuss this matter further.


Sincerely,

IBM CREDIT, LLC


/s/ Steven A Flanagan

Steven A. Flanagan 

Manager, Global Special Handling
#### In the Matter of Dorothy P. Montague, as President of Germantown Neighbors Association, et al., Appellants, v New York State Department of Environmental Conservation by Erin Crotty, Commissioner, et al., Respondents.

[808 NYS2d 798]

Rose, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia, Jr., J.), entered November 5, 2004 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioners attempted to bring a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul a negative declaration issued by respondent Department of Environmental Conservation. On the final day before expiration of the statute of limitations *(see*CPLR 217 [1]), an assistant to petitioners’ counsel delivered an index number ap*905plication, a request for judicial intervention and a check for the applicable fees to the office of the Albany County Clerk, but then delivered the notice of petition and petition to the Supreme Court Clerk’s office. Respondents ultimately moved to dismiss the proceeding as time-barred. Finding the matter to be factually indistinguishable from that reviewed in *Matter of Mendon Ponds Neighborhood Assn. v Dehm*(98 NY2d 745 [2002]), Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding. Petitioners appeal and we affirm.

Where, as here, the notice of petition and petition commencing a special proceeding are filed with the Court Clerk instead of the County Clerk, whether inadvertently or not, the filing is ineffective and constitutes a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect rendering the proceeding a nullity *(see*CPLR 304; *Matter of Mendon Ponds Neighborhood Assn. v Dehm, supra*at 747; *Matter of Allstate Indem. Co. v Martinez,*4 AD3d 422, 422 [2004]; *Matter of Parkinson v Leahy,*277 AD2d 810, 811 [2000]). While the filing error may have been unintended and due to the lack of advice from the County Clerk’s office, the resulting jurisdictional defect cannot be disregarded as a mere irregularity *(cf. Matter of New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v Board of Assessors of Town of Vestal,*285 AD2d 945 [2001]). Because the proceeding was a nullity, petitioners’ subsequent service and proper filing of an amended petition four months later was of no effect *(see Goldberg v Camp Mikan-Recro,*42 NY2d 1029, 1030 [1977]). Nor do we perceive a basis to deem respondents’ inaction to be a waiver *(cf.*CPLR 2101 [f]) or construe CPLR 304 to find that filing with the Court Clerk was sufficient without proof that the County Clerk had designated the Court Clerk to receive petitions for filing. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition *(see Matter of Rossi v Town of Colonie Dept. of Assessment,*13 AD3d 683, 683 [2004], *lv dismissed*5 NY3d 758 [2005]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                            
                                 Estimated volume                Share of outstanding real estate farm loans
                              (millions of dollars)                               (percent)
                      ______________________________________     ___________________________________________

Year                  Total     Q1      Q2      Q3       Q4      Total      Q1        Q2        Q3       Q4
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                            
1998......    |           6      -1      3        0        5      .022     -.004      .009     .000     .016
1999......    |          15       0      3        5        7      .051     -.001      .011     .015     .022
2000......    |          12     -12      3        8       14      .037     -.037      .009     .022     .040
2001......    |          42      10      9        5       17      .123      .030      .027     .014     .049
2002......    |          35       8      6        5       16      .097      .022      .017     .014     .041
2003......    |          32       4      6        8       14      .082      .010      .015     .021     .034
2004......    |          18       1      5        2       10      .044      .003      .012     .005     .021
2005......    |          17       2     11        4        0      .039      .005      .024     .009     .000
2006......    |          20       2      6        1       12      .042      .003      .012     .002     .023
2007......    |           8      -3      0        5        6      .015     -.006      .000     .009     .011
2008......    |          54       5      8       12       29      .093      .008      .013     .020     .046
2009......    |        n.a.      33     41     n.a.     n.a.      n.a.      .051      .064     n.a.     n.a.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

25
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02215-LTB-KLM

CHARLES MASON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

______________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Second Unopposed Motion to

Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline [Docket No. 25; Filed

February 11, 2013] (the “Motion”). Defendant seeks a second extension of the dispositive

motion deadline to allow time “to discuss settlement and finalize settlement documents.”

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#25] is GRANTED. The Scheduling

Order entered on June 28, 2012 [#10], and modified on January 7, 2013 [#24], is further

modified to extend the following deadline:

• Dispositive Motion Deadline March 11, 2013

Dated: February 12, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-02215-LTB-KLM Document 27 Filed 02/12/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                                  CALTON, INC.
     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

        In connection with the annual report of Calton, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Laura
A. Camisa, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  February 24, 2006      By:  /s/ Laura A. Camisa
                                    -------------------
                                    Laura A. Camisa
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
8

A.4. Average Maturity of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersMonths

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1993...... 9.2 7.3 9.6 8.3 30.4 9.4 8.5 10.0 11.1 7.4 1994...... 10.3 7.6 9.8 8.6 36.6 9.4 8.6 11.6 13.5 7.2 1995...... 9.9 8.7 9.9 8.5 26.5 10.0 9.0 10.8 12.1 8.2 1996...... 8.5 7.8 11.3 7.6 29.4 9.2 8.6 10.5 12.1 7.3 1997...... 9.9 9.1 11.0 10.7 30.6 7.4 8.8 11.6 12.4 8.8 1998...... 9.8 8.0 10.3 9.9 27.5 6.8 8.8 11.3 12.5 8.7 1999...... 11.5 8.0 11.0 11.3 20.1 10.5 9.8 11.2 12.4 11.4 2000...... 11.2 8.0 10.8 9.5 22.4 13.2 9.7 11.5 11.1 11.4 2001...... 13.2 8.5 14.0 10.3 24.3 15.3 9.6 11.9 12.5 14.1 2002...... 11.2 8.6 11.5 10.2 23.3 11.7 9.4 10.9 12.5 10.8 2003...... 12.5 8.5 9.4 11.1 26.5 14.4 9.5 11.2 12.7 12.9 2004...... 11.9 9.2 11.9 10.0 23.3 12.0 9.6 11.8 12.9 11.7 2002: Q1... 11.7 9.3 9.7 10.9 29.8 10.8 10.0 12.4 14.6 10.3  Q2... 13.4 11.3 19.6 10.6 27.7 16.8 10.2 12.6 14.2 13.8  Q3... 9.9 6.3 8.0 9.8 12.7 10.6 9.4 9.4 10.6 9.7  Q4... 9.5 7.3 8.8 9.1 32.8 9.3 7.7 8.3 9.7 9.8 2003: Q1... 14.1 8.8 11.3 11.8 35.2 14.2 10.4 11.7 15.5 14.3  Q2... 13.5 6.9 9.0 13.7 21.1 15.0 10.3 12.4 13.3 14.5  Q3... 10.4 8.4 6.4 8.9 21.1 12.4 9.2 10.3 11.1 10.3  Q4... 11.4 9.0 9.9 9.4 24.0 15.7 7.9 10.4 10.6 12.3 2004: Q1... 14.1 7.9 12.4 11.6 28.9 16.8 9.8 12.9 16.0 13.9  Q2... 10.4 8.6 10.5 10.3 18.4 9.2 10.8 11.9 12.2 9.5  Q3... 10.4 7.1 10.6 8.8 27.2 7.0 9.6 12.9 11.7 9.8  Q4... 11.9 10.2 13.2 8.5 17.8 16.9 7.7 9.3 11.1 12.6 2005: Q1... 13.3 10.8 9.9 11.1 46.8 16.5 8.7 12.1 15.2 13.0  Q2... 13.2 9.5 10.5 10.5 14.7 17.4 10.8 12.3 12.6 13.6  Q3... 10.8 8.8 10.0 9.0 13.6 12.8 8.1 11.0 12.7 10.4  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Christopher Palermo

v. Civil No. 08-cv-87-JD

Rockingham County Department

of Corrections,

Superintendent, et al

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The plaintiff having failed to identify and serve defendant

LNU, I recommend that that claim be dismissed without prejudice.

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

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

Law Comm. 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: January 13, 2009

cc: Christopher Palermo, pro se

 Brian J.S. Cullen, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00087-JD Document 24 Filed 01/13/09 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 99.2



---



##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert O. Bratton, state and attest that I am the Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of First Charter Corporation (the
Company). I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that



| |  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended
December 31, 2002 containing financial statements (the periodic report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and
|- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 
| |  | the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company for the periods presented.                                                                       

|                                                                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert O. Bratton

Name: Robert O. Bratton
Title:  Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Date:  March 6, 2003
199 La. 550

#### STATE v. BOND.

No. 36492.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1942.

Eugene Stanley, Atty. Gen., Niels F. Hertz, Asst. Atty. Gen., and James U. Galloway, Dist. Atty., and Henry F. Turner, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Shreveport, for appellee.

ROGERS, Justice.

Defendant was prosecuted under an affidavit charging him with operating a lottery in the City of Shreveport. He was tried and found guilty as charged and sentenced to pay a fine or to be imprisoned in default of the payment thereof. This appeal is from the conviction and sentence.

Defendant has not supported his appeal by argument or by brief. The record contains only a motion and order of appeal based solely on the ground that appellant’s conviction was contrary to the law and the evidence. There is no motion to quash, no *660motion in arrest, no motion for a new trial, no bill of exception, and no assignment of errors. In these circumstances and there being no error patent on the face of the record, this Court must affirm the judgment. State v. Deleo, 156 La. 672, 101 So. 17; City of Shreveport v. Jones, 172 La. 833, 135 So. 373.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence appealed from are affirmed.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2123

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the rate of payment

for funeral and burial expenses and plot allowance for certain veterans.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 12, 2001

Mr. TERRY (for himself, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr.

BARR of Georgia, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr. CONDIT, Mr. JONES

of North Carolina, Mr. OWENS, Mr. WOLF, Mr. BALDACCI, Mr. KING,

Mr. FRANK, Mr. GORDON, and Mr. STUPAK) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the

rate of payment for funeral and burial expenses and

plot allowance for certain veterans.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN RATE OF ALLOWANCE FOR BUR4 IAL BENEFITS.

5 (a) FUNERAL AND BURIAL EXPENSES.—(1) Section

6 2302(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by

7 striking ‘‘$300’’ and inserting ‘‘$500 (as increased from

8 time to time under section 5312 of this title)’’.
2

•HR 2123 IH

1 (2) Section 2303(a)(1)(A) of such title is amended

2 by striking ‘‘$300’’ and inserting ‘‘$500 (as increased

3 from time to time under section 5312 of this title)’’.

4 (b) PLOT ALLOWANCE.—Section 2303(b) of title 38,

5 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘150’’ each

6 place it appears and inserting ‘‘$500 (as increased from

7 time to time under section 5312 of this title)’’.

8 (c) INDEXING PAYMENT AMOUNTS.—Section

9 5312(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended—

10 (1) by striking ‘‘and each rate of monthly allow11 ance’’ and inserting ‘‘each rate of monthly allow12 ance’’; and

13 (2) by inserting ‘‘and each rate of allowance

14 paid under sections 2302 and 2303 of this title,’’

15 after ‘‘under section 1805 of this title,’’.

16 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

17 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment

18 of this Act and shall apply to individuals who die on or

19 after that date.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1

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
March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, G. Richard Patton, President, Chief Executive 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/ G. Richard Patton                          
|G. Richard Patton                              
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
|May 9, 2008                                    

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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Metropolitan Life

Insurance Company

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00248-JL

Judith A. Hanson, et al.

ORDER AFTER PRELIMINARY

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on

December 10, 2008.

The Discovery Plan (document no. 18) is approved as

submitted. The order on the interpleader plaintiff’s motion to

deposit funds (document no. 20) will be supplemented with a minor

modification.

Based on the discussions between the court and

counsel/parties at the conference, the following are stricken

without prejudice to being reinstated on request if warranted by

the evidence:

• the plaintiff’s claims for: N/A 

• the following affirmative defenses: Judith Hanson’s

third (failure of consideration) and fourth (statute of

Case 1:08-cv-00248-JL Document 24 Filed 12/10/08 Page 1 of 2
2

limitations) and Christina’s/William’s/Jill’s fourth (failure of

consideration) and fifth (statute of limitations).

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: December 10, 2008

cc: William D. Pandolph, Esq.

Jeanne P. Herrick, Esq.

Jackson W. Casey, Esq.

Jonathan A. Lax, Esq.

Patrick M. McAvoy, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00248-JL Document 24 Filed 12/10/08 Page 2 of 2