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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Albert Reuben Kuperman

v. Civil No. 09-cv-066-JD

State of New Hampshire, et al.

O R D E R

Albert Reuben Kuperman, proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, brought a civil rights action, alleging claims under 42

U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988. The magistrate judge

conducted a preliminary review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)

and D.N.H. Local Rule 4.3(d)(2), reported that Kuperman’s

complaint failed to state a claim, and recommended that all of

the claims be dismissed.1 Kuperman objected to the magistrate’s

report and recommendation on the grounds that the federal claims

which were barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994),

should be dismissed without prejudice; that issue preclusion did

not bar his federal claim which had been raised and decided in a

habeas corpus action, and that immunity did not protect the

1The magistrate judge also construed Kuperman’s complaint to

allege a state law claim for defamation, recommending that the

court decline supplemental jurisdiction as to that claim under 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Case 1:09-cv-00066-JD Document 32 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 3
defendants from suit. He also asked to withdraw his civil rights

conspiracy claims without prejudice.

The court reviewed Kuperman’s objection to the report and

recommendation and held that issue preclusion barred the claims

that had been decided in the habeas action, that the judges and

prosecutors named as defendants were entitled to immunity, and

that the Heck rule applied to his claims. The court approved the

report and recommendation and dismissed all of the claims with

prejudice. 

On appeal, Kuperman challenged the dismissal of his § 1983

claims. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling

on the preclusive effect of the judgment in Kuperman’s habeas

action as to his § 1983 claims, subject to modification of the

judgment entered here. The First Circuit directed this court to

modify the judgment to a dismissal of the § 1983 claims without

prejudice. 

2

Case 1:09-cv-00066-JD Document 32 Filed 03/22/10 Page 2 of 3
Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the order issued on July 1, 2009,

(document no. 24) and the judgment (document no. 25) are amended

to state:

As directed by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the

plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are

dismissed without prejudice. The remaining federal claims are

dismissed with prejudice. The court declines to exercise

jurisdiction over the state law claim for defamation, which is

dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

March 22, 2010

cc: Albert Rueben Kuperman, pro se

3

Case 1:09-cv-00066-JD Document 32 Filed 03/22/10 Page 3 of 3
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Privacy Office, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice of the retirement of one Privacy Act system of records notice.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security is giving notice that it proposes to retire the following Privacy Act system of records notice, Treasury/CS.123 Injury Notice (66 FR 52984, October 18, 2001), from its inventory of record systems and rely upon the Government-wide system of records notice issued by the Department of Labor, DOL/GOVT-1 ESA, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Federal Employees Compensation Act File (67 FR 49338, July 30, 2002), which is written to cover all Federal workers' compensation programs.

# DATES:

These changes will take effect on October 30, 2008.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, by telephone (703) 235-0780 or facsimile (703) 235-0442.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and as part of its ongoing integration and management efforts, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is retiring the system of records notice, Treasury/CS.123 Injury Notice (66 FR 52984, October 18, 2001), that was issued by Customs Service, Department of the Treasury prior to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

DHS will continue to collect and maintain records regarding individuals who file for workers' compensation and will rely upon the existing Federal Government-wide system of records titled DOL/GOVT-1 ESA, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Federal Employees Compensation Act File (67 FR 49338, July 30, 2002), which is written to cover all Federal workers' compensation programs.

Eliminating this notice will have no adverse impacts on individuals but will promote the overall streamlining and management of DHS Privacy Act record systems.

Dated: September 24, 2008.

Hugo Teufel III,

Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. E8-22996 Filed 9-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              The Schedule contains summary
                              financial information extracted from
                              the financial statements for Cambridge
                              + Related Housing Properties L.P. and
                              is qualified in its entirety by
                              reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000718915
<NAME>                        CAMBRIDGE  RELATED HOUSING PROPERTIES L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                          13,903,261
<SECURITIES>                                       205,509
<RECEIVABLES>                                      304,888
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   955,224
<PP&E>                                         149,785,384
<DEPRECIATION>                                  74,871,603
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,077,154
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,323,721
<BONDS>                                        156,769,256
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,015,823
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,077,154
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,780,246
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,408,204
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   435,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,099,494
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (12,162,452)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 21,447,564
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,182,768
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          906
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
#### Pamela Ford, Respondent, v Bruce Chapman et al., Appellants.

[807 NYS2d 53]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered February 16, 2005, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained at a self-defense seminar conducted by defendants in Albany County, denied defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to change venue from Bronx County to Albany County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Most of the 17 affidavits from seminar participants submitted by defendants in support of the motion state, in identical language, that the affiant “personally observed and witnessed *340[plaintiff] throughout the course of the seminar, and do[es] not recall any injuries to any participant.” The remaining affidavits, except for that of the seminar’s trainer, disclaim knowing who plaintiff is but do state that the affiant does not recall any participant being injured. The trainer’s affidavit states that he observed and witnessed plaintiff throughout the seminar and “spoke with her regarding an injury,” but he does not indicate the tenor of the conversation or the nature of the injury. None of the affidavits states that the affiant witnessed the alleged occurrence involving plaintiff and the seminar’s instructor. The affidavits were aptly characterized by the motion court as cumulative, “boilerplate” and “unpersuasive.” None contains the basic detail necessary to ascertain whether the affiant is a material witness *(see Cardona v Aggressive Heating,*180 AD2d 572 [1992]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This document contains summary financial information extracted form the attached
quarterly  report on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  December  31,  1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         5
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  44,283
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,273
<INVENTORY>                                    64,791
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               119,865
<PP&E>                                         41,625
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,103
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 283,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          60,325
<BONDS>                                        146,749
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       143
<OTHER-SE>                                     42,589
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   283,943
<SALES>                                        84,575
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               84,575
<CGS>                                          63,433
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  63,433
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               627
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,805
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                9,251
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3,711
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            5,540
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                545
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,995
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.35

        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01756-DME-MJW

MARCUS L. FREEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WOOLSTON, Vocational Instructor, and

LIKEN, Education Department,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion to Address the Court Pursuant

to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules of Discovery 34, Depositions 30(d)(1),

and Interrogatories 28, 30, and 32 (Docket No. 77) is granted to the extent that the

plaintiff may make an inquiry concerning these matters at the Status Conference set for

April 2, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. 

Date: February 9, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-01756-DME-MJW Document 79 Filed 02/09/12 USDC Colorado 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 theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of World Heart Corporation (the “Corporation”)for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Richard Juelis,Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to his knowledge:

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation as of June30, 2007.
| Dated:  August 9, 2007 | /s/  *A. Richard Juelis                       |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                        | A.  Richard Juelis, Vice President, Finance   |
|                        | and  Chief Financial Officer                  |
|                        | (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----

*******                **A signedoriginal of this written statement required by section 906 has beenprovided to the Corporation and will be retained by the Corporation andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1925 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 1925

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 15 (legislative day, May 9), 2002

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and 
 feasibility of designating the Waco Mammoth Site Area in Waco, Texas, 
     as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. STUDY AND REPORT REGARDING WACO MAMMOTH SITE AREA.

    (a) Study.--The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the 
State of Texas, the city of Waco, and other appropriate organizations, 
shall carry out a special resource study regarding the national 
significance, suitability, and feasibility of designating the Waco 
Mammoth Site Area located in the city of Waco, Texas, as a unit of the 
National Park System.
    (b) Study Process and Completion.--Section 8(c) of Public Law 91-
383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)) shall apply to the conduct and completion of 
the study required by this section.

SEC. 2. SUBMISSION OF STUDY RESULTS.

    Not later than 3 years after funds are first made available for 
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Resources of 
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources of the Senate a report describing the results of the study.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
213 La. 811

#### STATE v. POWELL.

No. 38855.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 26, 1948.

Campbell & Padgett, of Bossier City, for appellant.

Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culli-gan, Asst. Atty. Gen., and A. M. Wallace, Dist. Atty., of Benton, for appellee.

PONDER, Justice.

The defendant was tried for the crime of manslaughter and convicted of negligent homicide. He was sentenced to serve three years in the State Penitentiary. He has appealed.

During the course of the trial the defendant reserved two bills of exceptions, leveled at a question propounded by the district attorney while cross-examining the defendant’s character witness.

The defendant put his character at issue by placing a witness on the stand who testified to his good reputation. In cross-examining the witness the district attorney asked the following question, viz.: “Hadn’t you heard that this defendant had been arrested, charged and indicted by the Grand Jury with being the father of the child of his minor sister-in-law ?” After the witness had answered the question in the affirmative, the defendant’s counsel moved for a mistrial. The lower court overruled the motion, instructed the jury to disregard the question and answer, and ordered the trial to be proceeded with. It is from this ruling of the court that he now complains.

He contends that the refusal of the trial court to order a mistrial was prejudicial error. He has not presented us any authority to support his contention. He concedes that the district attorney has the right to cross-examine a character witness regarding specific instances where he might have heard the character of the accused discussed, but contends that the scope of cross-examination is not unlimited. He takes the position that the district attorney does not have the authority to inquire into a charge of a different nature than that for which the accused is being tried.

When the defendant puts his character at issue the State has the right to rebut it with proof of his bad reputation for violence, passion and vindictiveness. This right is more evident when the inquiry is instituted upon cross-examination of the defendant’s witness. State v. Farrer, 35 La. Ann. 315.

A witness testifying to the good character of an accused may properly be examined regarding particular facts in order to test the soundness of his opinion and the data upon which it is founded. State v. Thornhill, 188 La. 762, 178 So. 343.

*742A character witness for an accused may be questioned as to previous arrests for the purpose of testing the witness’s knowledge of the accused’s reputation. State v. Jacobs, 195 La. 281, 196 So. 347.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

O’NEILL, C. J., dissents.
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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Cragar
Industries, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Richard P. Franke, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(3)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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


/s/ Richard P. Franke
---------------------------
Richard P. Franke
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 6Federal Reserve Bank of: AtlantaFilings received during the week ending January 6, 2007FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodFirst Citizens Financial Corporation                                                                                    * 3A1First Citizens Financial Corporation, Dawsonville, Georgia, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the outstanding shares of First Citizens Bank of Georgia, Dawsonville, Georgia (in organization).Newspaper: 01/29/2007Federal Register: Not available
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 July 27, 2019FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBANCO BRADESCO S.A.                                                                                                     * 3A1Banco Bradesco, S.A., Lecce Holdings S.A. , Fundacao Bradesco, BBD Participacoes S.A., Nova Cidade de Deus Participacoes S.A., and Cidade de Deus Cia. Comercial de Participcoes, all of Osasco, Sao Paulo, Brazil, to become bank holding companies by acquiring substantially all of the shares of BAC Florida Bank, Coral Gables, Florida.  Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 08/12/2019MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST COMPANY                                                                                 * BranchManufacturers and Traders Trust Company, Buffalo, New York, to establish a branch office to be located at 150 North Radnor Chester Road, Delaware County, Pennsylvania.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not applicable