alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

April 10, 1939 

Eononbh Ih*l@it :flitrso12 

ASSiStnnt County Attorney 

c near art 

be that both prerlow or pxwont woupawy,ls a pre-reguirlta to 

the alam ot the homestead exomgti&n front iozwd sala or examsthxl. 
Hon. Dwi&t i'ibltwell, April 10, 1939, Page 2 

Actual occupancy is not an aI:solute essential In every 

instance to the ripht to clalu tha homeataad cxenptlcn. Vacar.t 

property may be impressed with the homestead character when the 

head of a family, having no other homestead, has a definite intention, in eood faith, to occupy the came 88 such and is EfUIlreSting 

such intention with actual preparatory acts in connection with 

the property nuch as to clearly show such intention, the eood fail3 

and the reality thereof. Brown v. Lotgu~, 7 S. fi. (2) 189; Broodland f. Bank, 15 S. i.. (2) 112; Jolesch i$ Chaska Co. v. Hampton, 

297 S. C. 271; .:splnoza v. Cocke. 276 5. b. 1095; Crimea v. 

Cl:f.ne, 300 8. Yj. 236; Chitham v. Kemp, 60 S. W. (2) 462. 

Whether the homestoad 'aremptLon haa been establiabkd in 

w & VW ~W~~UIO* IS 0r W~ZS~ l q ~8ti081 0i h o t. Xt To p lc l b 0 ë. 

Smpoaalble for a fork or aNldarit~t6 be pxypmwd b~.tho~&aptrol.la 

whloh would ba applicable In all.qarre8. It uctim+.bo jtiot 

. 

., 

-w lmpoaslble for w, or anyone elm, to W+dou# a;&ilg.i from" 

uhlob lt oould be d¨ned jumt rbm'the homwtoad .rightiax%st8., 

~&a lndioated abwo 'howwar, premlw8 .mey beoow:.a rwldewe .honm-. 

ibad bafore a&d phyoioal oooupaxly~~under EOIW alrouwtgxaoe.u+~~: 1: 

:'Iai awh 3.natanoe#, upon proper‘proof,..the tu ?x~tidn:~::be~-;".':~ 

axteed vilthmt 'the.- of'aiildavlts on the. identios&c$orms 

farnlshed by tlie Cimptroller.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 

v. Case No. 08-cr-82-01-SM

Carlos J. Gonzalez,

 Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant Gonzalez’s motion to continue the trial is granted (document

no. 12). Defendant Gonzalez has filed a Waiver of Speedy Trial. Trial has

been rescheduled for the month of December 2008. 

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 the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for November 24, 2008 at 

11:30 a.m. 

Jury selection will take place on December 2, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. 

Case 1:08-cr-00082-SM Document 14 Filed 09/25/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

September 25, 2008

cc: Cathy Green, Esq.

Michael Zaino, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:08-cr-00082-SM Document 14 Filed 09/25/08 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

v.

ANN S. BORIS AND VAMSIDHAR R.

VURIMINDI

PETITION OF: VAMSIDHAR R.

VURIMINDI :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 478 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of March, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph A. Ligotti, Jr. 

v. Civil No. 08-cv-119-JL

David Garofalo

O R D E R

Pursuant to this court’s orders of October 9 and October 31,

2008, this case is administratively closed. The preliminary

injunction entered on June 26, 2008, shall remain in effect. 

This court retains jurisdiction over this case for purposes of

enforcing the injunction. If either party wishes to reopen the

case, he shall file a notice to that effect with this court.

Notice of this order is herewith provided to David M.

Nickless, Esq., as trustee of the plaintiff’s bankruptcy estate. 

See In re Ligotti, No. 08-43095 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2008).

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: December 11, 2008

cc: Joseph A. Ligotti, Jr., pro se

Donald L. Smith, Esq.

Daniel E. Will, Esq.

David M. Nickless, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 32 Filed 12/11/08 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Nelson Rivera, Respondent, v New York City Housing Authority et al., Appellants.

[807 NYS2d 373]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered December 22, 2004, which granted petitioner’s application to fjle a late notice of claim against both the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) and the City of New York, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the application denied.

In December 2003, petitioner was allegedly assaulted in the lobby of his mother’s apartment building. Folice responded to the scene, and they prepared an incident report. More than six months later, in July 2004, petitioner made an application to file a late notice of claim against NYCHA and the City. He claimed that he was injured due to defendants’ negligence in providing and maintaining security at the premises. Fetitioner asserted that physical and emotional disabilities had precluded him from contacting an attorney for over four months after the alleged assault, but he provided no medical records or other documentation to substantiate his disability. Counsel then waited six weeks after he was retained to prepare the notice of claim. The motion court granted petitioner’s motion to file this notice. We reverse.

*451General Municipal Law § 50-e (1) (a) requires that where a notice of claim is a precondition to the commencement of an action, such notice must be served “within ninety days after the claim arises.” However, General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) allows a court, in its discretion, to except a claim from the 90-day deadline, upon a showing of a reasonable excuse for the delay. The statute allows this where the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, and where the delay would not substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense *(see Alexander v City of New York,*2 AD3d 332 [2003]).

These requirements were not met in this case. Initially, petitioner failed to document the illnesses which he says precluded him from timely retaining counsel or filing his notice of claim *(Lefkowitz v City of New York,*272 AD2d 56 [2000]; *Gaudio v City of New York,*235 AD2d 228 [1997]; *Matter of Vargas v New York City Hous. Auth., 232*AD2d 263 [1996], *lv denied*89 NY2d 817 [1997]). Further, the police report of the criminal assault did not contain facts sufficient to constitute notice to defendants of plaintiffs intention to file a civil suit based upon a claim of negligent security *(see Chattergoon v New York City Hous. Auth.,*161 AD2d 141 [1990], *affd*78 NY2d 958 [1991]). Finally, the delay of more than six months between the alleged assault and the filing of the notice of claim undeniably compromised defendants’ ability to identify witnesses and collect their testimony based upon fresh memories *(Alexander, 2*AD3d at 332). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. 06-cr-198-01-JD

Christopher Hachey

O R D E R

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

23) 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. § 3131(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: January 22, 2007

cc: Frederick Busconi, Esq.

Joseph Laplante, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00198-JD Document 24 Filed 01/22/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

USA

v. 08-mc-51-JD

Charles E. Holland

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated September 23, 2008, recommending that respondent be ordered to

obey the summons, and that he be ordered to appear on November 5, 2008, at 9:00

a.m. at 80 Daniels St, 3rd FL, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, before David

Kalinowski, to give testimony and produce all books and records in his possession

or control required and called for by the terms of the summons of April 3, 2008. 

It is further recommended that the government be awarded its costs.

SO ORDERED.

October 17, 2008 /s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Seth R. Aframe, AUSA

Charles E. Holland, pro se

Case 1:08-mc-00051-JD Document 6 Filed 10/17/08 Page 1 of 1
Consent of Maples and Calder Asia.



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 MAPLES AND CALDER 
 CAYMAN EUROPE ASIA 
  
 Ctrip.com
International, Ltd 
 3F, Building 63-64 
 No. 421 Hong Cao Road

 Shanghai 200233 
 People’s Republic of China 

 
 April 28, 2004 
  
 Dear Sirs, 
  
 Re:    Ctrip.com International, Ltd 
  
 We consent to the reference to our firm under the headings “Enforcement of Civil Liabilities” and “Taxation” in the annual report on Form 20-F filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof. 
  
 Yours
faithfully, 
  
 /s/    Maples
and Calder Asia 
 MAPLES and CALDER Asia 
  
 1504 One International Finance Center, 1 Harbour View Street, Hong Kong 
 Telephone: (852) 2522 9333 Fascimile: (852) 2537 2955 Email: hkinfo@maplesandcalder.com 
 www.maplesandcalder.com 
 Resident Hong Kong Partners: Christino Chang (England and Wales), Linda Martin (England and Wales), Spencer
Privett (England and Wales).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Christopher G. Fournier 

v. Civil No. 08-cv-338-JD 

Northern NH Correctional Facility, Warden 

O R D E R 

On October 8, 2009, Attorney Harry C. Batchelder, Jr. was appointed to represent Petitioner 

Fournier in this case. The current status of this case is that there is a pending Motion for Summary 

Judgment, which was filed by the respondent on April 10, 2009. It is herewith ordered, that the 

Petitioner file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment on or before November 9, 2009, 

thirty days from the date of this Order. 

SO ORDERED. 

October 9, 2009 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

United States District Judge 

cc: Harry C. Batchelder , Jr., Esq. 

Elizabeth Woodcock, Esq. 

Stephen Fuller, Esq. 

Case 1:08-cv-00338-JD Document 37 Filed 10/09/09 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of BPZ Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Randall D. Keys, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 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)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
| */s/ Randall D. Keys*   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Randall D. Keys         |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| January 17, 2006   |

 

1

----
Order entered May 17, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00410-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Y.D., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 14-01249

ORDER

In an order dated May 4, 2016, we ordered Ms. Sumler, Official Court Reporter of the 

305th Judicial District Court, to file, within ten days, either the reporter’s record or written 

verification that appellant has not requested the record. Rather than file the reporter’s record as 

ordered in this parental termination case, Ms. Sumler filed, on May 13, 2016, a motion 

requesting a ten-day extension of time to file the reporter’s record.

We again remind the trial court and Ms. Sumler that, because this is a parental 

termination case, it is the responsibility of the Court Reporter to prepare, verify, and timely file 

the reporter’s record and that the trial court must direct Ms. Sumler to immediately commence 

the preparation of the reporter’s record. The trial court must arrange a substitute reporter if 

necessary. TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4(b)(1).

We GRANT Ms. Sumler’s motion and extend the time to file the reporter’s record to 

MAY 23, 2016. In doing so, however, we EXPRESSLY CAUTION Ms. Sumler that failure to 
comply with this order may result in an order that she not sit as a court reporter until she 

complies.

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable Cheryl 

Lee Shannon, Presiding Judge of the 305th Judicial District Court, Ms. Sumler, and all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

UNITED STATES DISTRZCT COURT DISTRICT Of NEW HAMPSHIRE 

FOR THE DISTRZCT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

JAM 282669 

United States of America FILED 

v. Case No. 09-cr-30-PB 

Edward Brown and 

Elaine Brown 

SEALED ORDER 

I recuse myself from presiding over this case for the same 

reasons set forth in my order dated October 12, 2007 in United 

States v. Jason perhard (07-cr-168), United States v. Daniel 

Riley (07-cr-189), United States v. Robert Wolffe (07-cr-190) and 

United States v. Cirino Gonzalez (07-cr-191). 

The case shall be assigned to another judge. 

SO ORDERED. 

~\ )~=::~=-~ Pa'hl Barbadoro 

United States District Judge 

January'd5; 2009 

cc: Counsel of Record 

Case 1:09-cr-00030-GZS Document 6 Filed 01/28/09 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02227-WJM-KLM

WILDEARTH GUARDIANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LISA P. JACKSON, in her official capacity as Administrator, United States Environmental

Protection Agency,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Stay Deadlines Pending

Lodging of Proposed Settlement [Docket No. 7; Filed October 26, 2011] (the “Motion”).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows. The

Scheduling Conference set for October 31, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. is VACATED. However,

the Court declines to enter a stay of proceedings. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-

07 (1997) (the District Court retains “broad discretion” as to whether proceedings should

be stayed, “as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” (citation omitted)). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file the referenced proposed

consent decree on or before December 15, 2011.

Dated: October 27, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02227-WJM-KLM Document 9 Filed 10/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6715
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GERALD PARKER, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-73, CA-96-90-4-BO) Submitted: January 13, 1998 Decided: February 24, 1998 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant Gerald Parker seeks to appeal from the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Because we find that Appellant did not challenge the alleged use of coerced confessions from Government witnesses on direct appeal, the district court's reliance on Boeckenhaupt v. United States , 537 F.2d 1182, 1183 (4th Cir. 1976), as a basis for dismissal was erroneous. However, we find that this error was harmlessbecause the district court properly denied relief on the alternative basis that there was no admissible evidence to support the claim. We further find that the record does not support Appellant's allegations concerning prosecutorial misconduct and the existence of a racial and political conspiracy against him. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and, in all other respects, dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Parker , Nos. CR-94-73; CA-96-90-4-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 22, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2143

To make the repeal of the estate tax permanent.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 12, 2001

Mr. WELDON of Florida (for himself, Mr. ARMEY, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mrs. JO

ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. DEMINT,

Mr. WAMP, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr.

TANCREDO, Mr. NEY, Mr. GOODE, Mr. PAUL, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. FLAKE,

Mr. POMBO, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. TERRY,

Mr. TIBERI, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. PUTNAM, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr.

CRENSHAW, Mr. BARR of Georgia, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr.

HOSTETTLER, Mr. PITTS, and Mr. EVERETT) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To make the repeal of the estate tax permanent.

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 ‘‘Permanent Death Tax

5 Repeal Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 2143 IH

1 SEC. 2. ESTATE TAX REPEAL MADE PERMANENT.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 901 of the Economic

3 Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is

4 amended—

5 (1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘shall not

6 apply—’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘(other

7 than title V) shall not apply to taxable, plan, or limi8 tation years beginning after December 31, 2010.’’,

9 and

10 (2) in subsection (b) by striking ‘‘, estates,

11 gifts, and transfers’’.

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

13 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in section

14 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconcili15 ation Act of 2001.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-163-PB

Frederico Gonzalez

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for May 5, 2009 citing the need for additional

time to consider plea negotiations or prepare for trial. The

government does 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 May 5, 2009 to July 7, 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 defendant in a speedy trial.

The April 23, 2009 final pretrial conference is continued to

June 24, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.

Case 1:08-cr-00163-PB Document 19 Filed 04/13/09 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 13, 2009

cc: Glenn Geiger, Esq.

Terry Ollila, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00163-PB Document 19 Filed 04/13/09 Page 2 of 2
33

C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next Quarter, Compared with a Year EarlierPercent

Purpose of loan

Total Feeder cattle Dairy Crop storage Operating 

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Hig

Seventh (Chicago) Federal Reserve District (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*)

2004: Q4... 9 58 33 14 75 10 12 81 7 10 77 13 10 50 

2005: Q1... 9 61 30 16 72 12 11 80 9 12 78 9 9 52  Q2... 14 62 24 21 70 9 12 82 7 18 68 15 9 58  Q3... 10 57 33 16 73 11 7 89 5 14 63 23 9 42  Q4... 10 51 39 17 65 17 12 83 5 17 67 16 7 39 2006: Q1... 8 55 37 21 72 7 12 81 7 17 63 19 7 39  Q2... 16 55 29 15 78 7 13 80 7 15 60 25 10 49  Q3... 12 58 30 17 71 11 15 77 9 11 60 28 8 45  Q4... 18 47 35 27 66 7 15 78 7 9 53 38 17 40 

Eleventh (Dallas) Federal Reserve District (LA*, NM*, TX)

2004: Q4... 12 71 17 13 72 15 11 89 0 9 84 7 7 74 

2005: Q1... 12 69 19 19 66 15 16 80 4 11 84 5 11 68  Q2... 15 69 15 15 74 12 13 80 2 8 82 5 10 72  Q3... 12 67 21 17 68 15 12 81 1 7 83 5 8 70  Q4... 12 73 15 17 64 19 12 79 4 13 76 6 12 69 2006: Q1... 23 58 19 25 67 8 12 83 5 14 83 3 21 62  Q2... 25 61 14 35 61 4 11 82 2 13 77 5 20 58  Q3... 23 63 14 21 67 12 11 80 4 11 85 5 13 59  Q4... 14 66 20 26 63 11 10 80 5 10 85 6 11 66 

Fifth (Richmond) Federal Reserve District (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)

2004: Q4... 22 65 13 18 71 12 17 72 11 13 78 9 20 60 

2005: Q1... 18 73 9 19 71 10 14 81 5 4 96 0 16 68  Q2... 11 67 22 7 87 7 27 73 0 19 81 0 11 67  Q3... 24 71 5 6 89 6 13 88 0 11 11 0 5 19  Q4... 28 61 11 14 71 14 20 80 0 13 75 13 26 58 2006: Q1... 21 63 16 19 69 13 19 81 0 22 72 6 23 68  Q2... 16 74 11 0 87 13 21 79 0 13 81 6 21 68  Q3... 47 53 0 29 64 7 31 69 0 31 69 0 42 58  Q4... 25 70 5 18 76 6 24 76 0 16 68 16 25 70  * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-5187

TERRY J. EASTER and MICHAEL EGGLESTON,

Plaintiffs,

and

STEVEN A. HUDSON, MICHAEL S. MORGAN,

VANESSA R. SPENCER, and JOHN A WINSLOW,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 04-CV-1435,

Judge Emily C. Hewitt.

Before DYK, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Steven A. Hudson et al. (Hudson) moves for a 23-day extension of time, until

February 23, 2009, to file their initial brief. Hudson states that the United States

consents to the motion.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted. No further extensions should be anticipated.
FOR THE COURT

FEB 2 4 2009	

/s/ Jan Horbalv

Jan Horbaly

Clerk	FILED

U.S. COURT or APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

cc:	Jules Bernstein, Esq.

Shalom Brilliant, Esq.	

FEB 2 4 2009

s19	

JAN HORBMLY

CLERK

Date

2008-5187	 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Civil No. 07-cr-86-PB

Carl Taylor

O R D E R

I recuse myself from this case and direct the clerk to

assign the matter to another judge.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 19, 2007

cc: Jennifer C. Davis, Esq.

Case 1:07-cr-00086-SM Document 4 Filed 04/19/07 Page 1 of 1