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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00343-PAB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. JOEL MELKIN BANEGAS-PACHECO,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER SETTING CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING

_____________________________________________________________________

Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer

A Notice of Disposition was filed on September 20, 2011 [Docket No. 12]. A

Change of Plea hearing is set for November 1, 2011 at 1:00 p.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 1, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. is VACATED.

DATED September 22, 2011.
179 La. 1048

#### STATE ex rel. LAFITTE v. SEWERAGE AND WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 32169.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 21, 1934.

Rudolph F. *Becker,*Jr., of New Orleans, for appellant.

Gus A. Llambias, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

ROGERS, Justice.

Relator appeals from a judgment rejecting on the ground of laches his demand for reinstatement and back salary as a civil service employee of the respondent board.' Relator was employed indifferently as watchman and laborer by the respondent board from May 21, 1925, to October 17, 1930, on which date, while working as a laborer, he was discharged. Relator was one of a number of employees whose services were dispensed with by the respondent board in the reorganization of its forces and departments necessitated by decrease of work and’reduction of revenues. Under section ■ 1 of Act No. Ill of 1902 amending section 13 of Act No. 6 of 1899, Extra Session, the respondent board is authorized to dispense with unnecessary employees, whether under civil service regulations or not. No one took relator’s place, and in discharging him the respondent board appears to1 have acted in good faith and in the public interest.

Relatot’s suit was filed on April 28, 1932. During the time elapsing between the date of his discharge and the date his suit was filed, no promise was made relator he would be reinstated, and relator was given ‘ no cause to believe his discharge would be reconsidered by the respondent board.

It is well settled that the right of a public employee to be reinstated in his employment may be lost by laches or unreasonable delay in asserting that right. Crais v. City of New Orleans, 172 La. 931, 136 So. 7; State ex rel. Koehl v. Sewerage & Water Board, 179 La. 117, 153 So. 533; State ex rel. Lutz v. Sewerage & Water Board, 156 So. 10, recently decided.

Relator delayed for' eighteen months and eleven days before bringing his suit, and in our opinion is guilty of such laches as will defeat his right to reinstatement, if any such right ever existed.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

EST RE TYCO INTERNATIONAL LTD., 

SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE AND "ERISA" 

LITIGATION 

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT 

ASSOCIATION OF COLORADO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TYCO INTERNATIONAL LTD.; TYCO 

ELECTROMCS LTD.; COVIDIEN LTD.; 

L. DENNIS KOZLOWSKI; MARK H. 

SWARTZ; FRANK E. WALSH, JR., and 

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, 

Defendants. 

MDL Docket No. 02-1335-B 

This Document Relates To: 

Docket No. 08-1341-B 

AGREED ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT OF 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AGAINST MARK H. SWARTZ AND 

BAR ORDER 

Case 1:08-cv-01341-PB Document 21 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 3
Plaintiff in the above-captioned action and Defendant Mark H. Swartz 

(each a "Settling Party" and collectively the "Settling Parties") have represented 

to the Court that they have entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release (the 

"Settlement Agreement") that resolves all issues between and among them that 

are involved, set forth, or referred to in the Complaint. All defined terms set forth 

herein are defined in the Settlement Agreement. 

For good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. Bar Order. As provided in Section 2 lD-4(f)(7)(A) of the Private 

Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(f>(7)(A), to the 

maximum extent permissible under applicable law: (a) Defendants L. Dennis 

Kozlowski, Tyco International Ltd., Covidien Ltd., Tyco Electronics Ltd., 

PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP, and Frank E. Walsh, Jr., (the "Previously-Settled 

Defendants") are hereby permanently barred, enjoined, and restrained from 

commencing, prosecuting, or asserting any claim for or otherwise seeking 

contribution against any Settling Party based upon, relating to, or arising out of 

the Released Claims; (b) each Settling Party is hereby permanently barred, 

enjoined, and restrained from commencing, prosecuting, or asserting any claim 

for contribution against each other or against any other person based upon, 

relating to, or arising out of the Released Claims. 

2. Because there is no just reason for delay in the entry of this 

ORDER and FINAL JUDGMENT with respect to the claims asserted by Plaintiff 

against Mark H. Swartz, all claims asserted by Plaintiff against Mark H. Swartz, 

Case 1:08-cv-01341-PB Document 21 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 3
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

54(b). 

3. The Clerk of the Court is expressly directed to enter this Agreed 

Order and Final Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice against Mark H. Swartz 

and Bar Order as a final judgment and to send a copy of same to all counsel of 

record. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Entered: July 21 2010 

Vs/ Paul Barbadoro 

The Honorable Paul Barbadoro 

United States District Court Judge 

cc : Counsel of Record 

Case 1:08-cv-01341-PB Document 21 Filed 07/21/10 Page 3 of 3
**Exhibit 32.2**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
     I, Rosemarie Bouman, Chief FinancialOfficer of First Oak Brook Bancshares, Inc. (the“Registrant”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:
 (1)  the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certificationis attached as an exhibit (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and  (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialsrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.   Dated: March 10, 2005 /S/ ROSEMARIEBOUMAN                    Rosemarie BoumanVice President & Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1766 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1766

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 4270 John Marr Drive in Annandale, Virginia, as the ``Stan Parris 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2001

Mr. Wolf (for himself, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Mr. Schrock, Mr. 
Scott, Mr. Goode, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. 
Boucher, and Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 4270 John Marr Drive in Annandale, Virginia, as the ``Stan Parris 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. STAN PARRIS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4270 John Marr Drive in Annandale, Virginia, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Stan Parris Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Stan Parris 
Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
April
      6, 2009





Nu
Horizons Electronics Corp.


70 Maxess
Road


Melville,
New York 11747





Ladies
and Gentlemen:





I hereby
surrender to Nu Horizons Electronics Corp.  (the "Company") my options
to purchase 150,000 shares of common stock of the Company that were granted to
me under the Company's 2000 Key Employee Stock Option Plan pursuant to the Stock
Option Grant Agreement, dated as of May 24, 2002, between the Company and me.
This surrender does not affect any other option or restricted stock award that
may have been made to me at any other time.





I hereby
acknowledge and agree that I will have no rights to or interest in the
surrendered options effective as of the date hereof. I further acknowledge and
agree that I will receive nothing in return for this surrender and was promised
nothing in return, such as future equity grants to replace the forfeited
options.




Very
      truly yours,/s/
      Arthur NadataArthur
      Nadata





AGREED:





NU
HORIZONS ELECTRONICS CORP.




/s/
      Richard Schuster
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: 2Federal Reserve Bank of: New YorkFilings received during the week ending September 14, 2019FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBOGOTA FINANCIAL CORP                                                                                                   * 3A1Bogota Financial, MHC and Bogota Financial Corp., both of Teaneck, New Jersey, to become bank holding companies by acquiring 100 percent of the shares in Bogota Savings Bank, Teaneck, New Jersey, upon a conversion of Bogota Savings Bank from mutual to stock form, pursuant to Section 3(a)(1) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not availableBogota Financial, MHC                                                                                                   4c8Bogota Financial, MHC and Bogota Financial Corp., both of Teaneck, New Jersey, to engage de novo in extending credit and servicing loans, pursuant to Section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended.Newspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: Not availableJPMORGAN CHASE & CO.                                                                                                    InvestmentJPMorgan Chase & Co., New York, New York, provides prior notice for J.P Morgan International Finance Limited, Newark, Delaware, to make an investment in a foreign subsidiary, pursuant to Section 211.9(f) of Regulation KNewspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: Not applicable
Order filed, May 4, 2022

.

In The 

## Court of Appeals
For The 

## First District of Texas

____________
NO. 01

- 22

- 00214

- CV

MONIQUE O'NEAL , Appellant

V.

EDGAR RODRIGUEZ , Appellee

On Appeal from the 1 27th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case 2021

- 08371



### ORDER The reporter’s record in this case was due April 21, 2022

. See Tex. R. App. P.
35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The

record ha s not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed
timely, we issue the following order.

We order , the official (or substitute) court reporter, to file the record in this
appeal , if any, within 30 days of the date of this o rder

.

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          51,526
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      662
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        212
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,228
<PP&E>                                          43,984
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,349
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 175,378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,661
<BONDS>                                            505
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            7,000
<PREFERRED>                                          1<F1>
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                     141,884
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   175,378
<SALES>                                          1,627
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,256
<CGS>                                              367
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,156
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,362
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,235)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       222
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,457)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,457)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.34)
<FN>
<F1>Represents Par Value of Reading Entertainment Series B Preferred Stock.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 

v. Case No. 08-cr-154-01-SM

Dorie Dimarca,

 Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant Dimarca’s motion to continue the trial is granted (document no.

10). Trial has been rescheduled for the month of May 2009. Defendant

Dimarca shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than March 16, 2009. 

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 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. 

Case 1:08-cr-00154-SM Document 11 Filed 03/05/09 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for May 8, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. 

Jury selection will take place on May 19, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

March 5, 2009

cc: Jon Saxe Esq.

Don Feith, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:08-cr-00154-SM Document 11 Filed 03/05/09 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Spady, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 807]

*882Peters, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), rendered September 23, 2003, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty in 2002 to robbery in the first degree. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, he was thereafter sentenced to five years of probation. In 2003, defendant was charged with violating various conditions of his probation by failing to abstain from the use of alcohol and illegal drugs and engaging in violent and threatening behavior toward his peers. Following a hearing, County Court revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced him to *V-h*to 4 years in prison. Defendant now appeals.

We reject defendant’s assertion that the probation violation finding relative to his assaultive behavior was based exclusively on hearsay evidence. Defendant’s probation officer testified that defendant admitted to her that he had a fight and hit another youth *(see People v Bower,*9 AD3d 603, 604 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 704 [2004]; *see also People v Rushin,*196 AD2d 835, 836 [1993], *lv denied*82 NY2d 808 [1993]).

Defendant’s assertion that County Court erred by allowing and considering testimony from defendant’s probation officer concerning the specific probation conditions which defendant was alleged to have violated, without the People ever having moved the actual order of probation conditions into evidence, was not preserved for our review. In any event, defendant’s probation officer testified as to the conditions of defendant’s probation, explained that she had read each one to defendant and was present when he signed them. The court, empowered to contemplate “any relevant evidence” (CPL 410.70 [3]), was not required to strictly adhere to evidentiary rules *(see People v Recor,*209 AD2d 831, 831-832 [1994], *affd*87 NY2d 933 [1996]).

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2




SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION




In
connection with the Annual Report of SPO Medical Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Report") filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Jeff Feuer, Principal 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 contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.






March 31,
2009




/s/
      Jeff FeuerJeff
      FeuerChief
      Financial Officer




A SIGNED
ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO
SPO MEDICAL INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY SPO MEDICAL INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
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 FranciscoDistrict: 12Federal Reserve Bank of: San FranciscoFilings received during the week ending June 21, 2008FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          689804
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   282993
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1225217
<PP&E>                                          254555
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2642489
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           708146
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      10000
<COMMON>                                         12631
<OTHER-SE>                                     1677380
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2642489
<SALES>                                       10824855
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              10824855
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 10589866
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              237109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2120)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2120)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Order entered August 14, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00462-CV

LEN RAO, Appellant

V.

THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-00255-B

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s August 9, 2013 motion for an extension of time to file a 

brief. Appellee notes in his motion that this Court has this appeal designated as accelerated. 

Upon review, the Court has determined that this appeal is not accelerated and has removed that 

designation. 

We GRANT appellee’s motion. Appellee shall file its brief on or before Monday, 

September 23, 2013.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS 

JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kevin D. Hall

v. Civil No. 08-cv-351-JL

State of New Hampshire

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated November 20, 2008.

SO ORDERED.

December 11, 2008 _________________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

cc: Kevin D. Hall, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00351-JL Document 9 Filed 12/11/08 Page 1 of 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 filing of HomeLife,  Inc.'s (the  "Company")  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2006 with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Andrew Cimerman,
the President and Chief Executive 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  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


                                        / s / Andrew Cimerman
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Andrew Cimerman
                                        President and
                                        Chief Executive Officer
Date: January 17, 2007