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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

United States of America 

Bmm§fmmw HAMPSHIRE 

MAY 1 9 2010 

FILED 

V . 

James LaPlante 

Civil No. 08-31-JM 

is 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Upon Request of Plaintiff, the United States of America, it 

ORDERED that the defendant, James LaPlante, appear at the 

United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, 

55 Pleasant Street, Concord, New Hampshire on the C K O day of 

VtLfie^ , 2010, at ^'3 0 dOl. to show cause 

why he should not be found in civil contempt of Court for failure 

to obey a lawful order of this Court entered on April 27, 2010. 

It is further 

ORDERED that a copy of this Order, together with the United 

States' Request for Order to Show Cause, be personally served 

upon the defendant on or before 

DATED at Concord, New Hampshire.^Chis jJ/*^\ day of 

UMfl \0 

r 

, 2010 

2010, 

Case 1:08-cv-00031-LM Document 14 Filed 05/20/10 Page 1 of 1
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 the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R9-IA-2008-N0240; 96300-1671-0000-P5]
 AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
 ACTION: Notice of issuance of permits for endangered species and/or marine mammals.
 SUMMARY: The following permits were issued.
 ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703-358-2281.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Management Authority, telephone 703-358-2104.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 
                    *et seq.*), and/or the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 
                    *et seq.*), the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth therein. For each permit for an endangered species, the Service found that (1) the application was filed in good faith, (2) the granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species, and (3) the granted permit would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in Section 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Endangered Species
Permit No.
Applicant
Receipt of application 
                            **Federal Register**
                             notice
Permit 
                             issuance date170807
Dirk Arthur dba Stage Magic Inc
73 FR 21981; April 23, 2008
July 29, 2008.
 
 
 Endangered Marine Mammals
Permit No.
Applicant
Receipt of application 
                            **Federal Register**
                             notice
Permit 
                             issuance date167514
Catherine L. Foy, Foy Marine Consulting
73 FR 23266; April 29, 2008
August 22, 2008.
 Dated: August 22, 2008. Lisa J. Lierheimer, Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority.


[FR Doc. E8-22954 Filed 9-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02248-MSK-MEH

STEPHANIE SEO,

Plaintiff,

v.

VIKING COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., a Minnesota corporation,

Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.

DATED this 1st day of September, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02248-MSK-MEH Document 4 Filed 09/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00400-CR

CHRISTOPHER LOVERNE HALL APPELLANTS

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1352298D

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

On September 15, 2014, the trial court revoked appellant Christopher 

Loverne Hall’s community supervision, adjudicated his guilt for forgery by 

possession of a check with intent to pass, and sentenced him to eight months in 

state jail. Also on September 15, 2014, the trial court entered its certification of 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

defendant’s right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The certification 

states that “the defendant has waived the right to appeal.” 

On September 19, 2014, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. On 

September 24, 2014, we notified appellant and his trial counsel that the 

certification indicating that he had waived the right to appeal had been filed in this 

court and that this appeal could be dismissed unless he or any party desiring to 

continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. No response has been filed. Because the 

trial court’s certification affirmatively shows that appellant has waived the right to 

appeal, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Hill v. State, 929 

S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996, no pet.).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: November 13, 2014
#### HARRY B. LOEB. PIANO CO. v. KESSLER.*

No. 14043.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Jan. 11, 1932.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1932.

Prowell, McBride & Ray and TVelton P. Mouton, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

Deutseh *&*Kerrigan and Bert Flanders, Jr., all of New Orleans, for appellee.

*

 Writ of certiorari denied by Supreme Court February 29, 1932.

WESTERFIELD, J.

Plaintiff and appellee moves to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that no appeal lies from a judgment referring a rale to dissolve a writ of sequestration to the merits, and upon the further ground that the judgment appealed from is interlocutory and irreparable injury is not alleged in the motion of appeal.

It appears from the record that plaintiff, claiming to be the owner of a certain R. C. A. radio of the value of $200, caused the instrument to be sequestered in the hands of the defendant, John Kessler. The ownership of the radio is based upon an instrument in writing purporting to lease the radio to Mrs. Margaret Kessler, defendant’s mother. Mrs. Kessler intervened, alleging that she was the owner of the radio upon the ground that the alleged lease of the instrument was, in .reality, a sale. The defendant, John Kessler, moved to dissolve the sequestration on the ground that the plaintiff’s petition disclosed no cause or right of action, and asked for $50 as attorney’s fees.

The trial judge referred the rule to dissolve to the merits. It is from this judgment that this appeal was prosecuted.

In the old case of Debaillon v. Ponsony, 5 Mart. (N. S.) 42, it was held that an appeal would lie “from a refusal of the judge a quo to set aside a writ of sequestration.” Lecesne v. Cottin, 10 Mart. (O. S.) 174.

“ * * * To entitle a party to an appeal from an interlocutory judgment, it is unnecessary that the injury be absolutely irreparable. It suffices that it may become irreparable by the final judgment or action of the Supreme Court; on that judgment.” Katz & Barnett v. Sorsby, 34 La. Ann. 588.

“We think the correct doctrine on this subject is stated by this court in Hyde v. Jenkins, 6 La. 427, to the effect that, to entitle a party to an appeal from an interlocutory judgment, it is unnecessary that the injury be absolutely irreparable. * * * If this final decree can not replace the party in the advantageous position which he occupied before the interlocutory judgment, the injury is irreparable.” State ex rel. Cole v. Judge of Fifth Judicial District, 29 La. Ann. 803.

“That said order or decree may cause appellants irreparable injury is possibly not' apparent on the face of the record, but, as an appeal is a remedy that is favored in law. we prefer in a case' of doubt, rather to sustain than deny the right.” Succession of Bothick, 52 La. Ann. 1863, 1865, 28 So. 458, 459.

The cases cited appear to us clearly to warrant our refusal to dismiss the appeal, but, were we in doubt, the appeal should be maintained, because of the favor with which the law regards appeals.

For the reasons assigned, the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

Motion to dismiss denied.
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: 8Federal Reserve Bank of: St. LouisFilings received during the week ending December 6, 2014FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodARVEST BANK                                                                                                             * BranchArvest Bank, Fayetteville, Arkansas, to establish a branch facility to be located at the Corner of Highway 412 and Country Road 1650, Huntsville, Arkansas.Newspaper: 12/12/2014Federal Register: Not applicableBYRON B. WEBB, INC.                                                                                                     CICNotice by Bryon B. Webb, III, Emden, Missouri, as trustee of the Byron B. Webb, III Separate Property Revocable Trust, dated April 26, 2004, and Victoria Webb Sack, Del Mar, California, as trustee of the Victoria Webb Sack Separate Property Revocable Trust, dated June 12, 2008, individually and as members of a family control group to retain control and increase their individual ownerships of Byron B. Webb, Inc., Palmyra, Missouri.Newspaper: 12/30/2014Federal Register: 12/15/2014MONTICELLO BANKING COMPANY, THE                                                                                         * BranchThe Monticello Banking Company, Monticello, Kentucky, to establish a branch facility to be located at 651 US 31W Bypass, Suite 212, Bowling Green, Kentucky.Newspaper: 12/18/2014Federal Register: Not applicable
EXHIBIT D(2)

                                   $10,500,000

                          CHINA FOOD & BEVERAGE COMPANY

                   (5 Years plus one day 8.00% Debenture Note)

         China Food & Beverage Company, a Nevada corporation  (herein called the
"Corporation") for value received, hereby promises to pay to Calder Investments,
Ltd.,  or order the sum of  $10,500,000  five  years  plus one day from the date
hereof,  and to pay interest on such principal amount from time to time from the
date  hereof at the rate of 8.00% per  annum,  payable  annually,  on the twelve
month anniversary hereof.

         The  Corporation  reserves  the right to pay all of any  portion of the
principal  amount of this debenture note upon any interest  payment date without
penalty and interest shall cease on any principal amount so paid.

         This  debenture  shall be  convertible  into shares of common  stock of
China Food & Beverage  Company at the options of China Food & Beverage  Company,
only if the common stock has closed for ten consecutive  business days at a high
bid price of $5.00 per share then all of part of the outstanding  face amount of
this  debenture  may be  converted  into  common  stock of China Food & Beverage
Company at a conversion  price of $5.00.  By way of example,  the  conversion of
$1,000,000  face amount of this debenture  divided by 5, the  conversion  price,
allows 200,000 shares to be issued.

         In the event of default in the payment of the principal of, or interest
on,  this  debenture  note  then the  entire  unpaid  principal  amount  of this
debenture note shall become immediately due and payable.

         No recourse  shall be had for payment of any part of the  principal  or
interest of this debenture note against any incorporator, or against any present
or future shareholder of the Corporation by virtue of any law, or by enforcement
of any  assessment,  or  otherwise,  or against  any  officer or director of the
Corporation  by reason of any matter  prior to the  delivery  of this  debenture
note, or against any present or future  officer or director of the  Corporation,
all  such  liability  being,  by the  acceptance  hereof  and  as a part  of the
consideration for the issue hereof, expressly released.


         In witness whereof the Corporation has signed this note on December 30,
1998.


                          CHINA FOOD & BEVERAGE COMPANY



                          By:   /s/ James Tilton
                          -----------------------------
                                James Tilton, President


                                       25
#### Nevin Western Lines, Inc., *v.*Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

(No. 24879

— Decided October 24, 1934.)

*Mr. Dane 0. Sprankle,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John W. Bricker,*attorney general, and *Mr. Donald C. Power,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the order of the said Public Utilities Commission of Ohio be, and the same is hereby, affirmed on authority of *Detroit-Cincinnati Coach Line, Inc.,*v. *Public Utilities*
      *596
      *Commission,*119 Ohio St., 324, and *Wheeling Traction Co.*v. *Public Utilities Commission,*119 Ohio St., 481.

*Order affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis, Zimmerman and Wilkin, JJ., concur.
H. Res. 878 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 17, 2007. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 

2764) making appropriations for the Department of State, 

foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with the 

Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, 

without intervention of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion offered by the 

chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee 

that the House concur in the Senate amendment with each 

of the two House amendments printed in the report of the 

Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. 

The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided 

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 

of the Committee on Appropriations. The previous question 

shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption 

without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
2 

•HRES 878 EH 

question except that the question of adoption of the motion 

shall be divided between the two House amendments. 

SEC. 2. During consideration of the motion to concur 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the motion to such time as may be designated by 

the Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23052]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Minority Programs Review Committee; Minority 
Programs Review Subcommittee A.
    Date: October 30, 2008.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: One Washington Circle Hotel, One Washington Circle, NW., 
Washington, DC 20037.
    Contact Person: Mona R. Trempe, PhD., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 
3AN12, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3998, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ff8b8d9a928f9a9290bf929e9693d1919697d1989089"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="017573646c71646c6e416c60686d2f6f68692f666e77">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 23, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
 [FR Doc. E8-23052 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith Lawrence, Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 211]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Roger S. Hayes, J.), rendered March 5, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of seven years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Shortly after defendant’s arrest, one officer showed another officer a bag of cocaine he had recovered from defendant’s car and estimated the drug’s weight, whereupon defendant, who was nearby, asked how the officer knew the weight of the cocaine. The hearing court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress defendant’s inquiry. In the first place, prior to this interchange, an officer had administered *Miranda*warnings and there was sufficient evidence that the officer had stated the warnings correctly (see *People v Gonzalez,*55 NY2d 720, 722 [1981], *cert denied*456 US 1010 [1982]; *People v Dunkley,*200 AD2d 499 [1994], *lv denied*83 NY2d 871 [1994]). In any event, defendant’s question was clearly spontaneous and not the product of the functional equivalent of interrogation. The police conduct consisted of normal conversation at the scene of an arrest and it was neither intended nor reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating statement *(see People v Arriaga,*309 AD2d 544 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 624 [2004]; *People v Smith,*298 AD2d 182 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 585 [2003]; *compare People v*
      *499
      *Ferro,*63 NY2d 316, 322 [1984], *cert denied*472 US 1007 [1985]). Furthermore, there was no connection between defendant’s spontaneous inquiry and an earlier statement that the hearing court had found to be inadmissible.

By failing to object, by failing to make specific objections, and by failing to request any further relief after objections were sustained, defendant has not preserved his present claims of prosecutorial error, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]; *People v D'Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

Defendant is not entitled, pursuant to the amelioration doctrine of *People v Behlog*(74 NY2d 237 [1989]), to the benefit of the reduced penalty contained in the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738), because the Legislature has expressly stated that the provision upon which defendant relies applies only to crimes committed after its effective date *(People v Nelson,*21 AD3d 861 [2005]). In any event, the amelioration doctrine does not apply where, as here, a defendant was sentenced before the new law’s effective date *(People v Walker,*81 NY2d 661, 666-667 [1993]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.