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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gary S. Dean

v. Civil No. 08-cv-123-JL

Northern NH Correctional Facility, Warden

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated June 2, 2008, recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus be dismissed as time-barred. The Motion to Stay and Abey Proceedings is

herewith denied as moot.

SO ORDERED.

August 14, 2008 _________________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

cc: Gary S. Dean, Pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00123-JL Document 8 Filed 08/14/08 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Norbal Garcia, Respondent.

[745 NYS2d 474]

Appeal by the People (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Griffin, J.), dated April 23,1999, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30, and (2), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated June 3, 1999, as, in effect, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination.

*510Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 23, 1999, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated June 3, 1999, made upon reargument; and, it is further,

Ordered that the order dated June 3,1999, is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

On February 25, 1998, the police went to the defendant’s apartment intending to execute a search warrant. When the defendant emerged from the apartment, he was arrested. On June 30, 1998, the defendant was indicted for drug possession and related offenses. On July 22, 1998, the court ordered open-file disclosure. On December 10, 1998, the People still had not provided full discovery, and defense counsel asked for a copy of the search warrant and all supporting documents. The court ordered production of these materials by January 25, 1999. The People did not supply a redacted copy of the search warrant affidavit until February 12, 1999, and never offered any explanation for their long delay. The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30.

The arguments advanced in the People’s brief on appeal were never presented to the Supreme Court, and accordingly, are not preserved for appellate review *(see People v Foy,*249 AD2d 217; *People v Babbs,*232 AD2d 496; *People v Marshall,*228 AD2d 15; *People v Bacchi,*186 AD2d 663; *People v Majette,*210 AD2d 145; *People v Mace,*206 AD2d 296). Under the circumstances presented here, we decline to consider them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, or remand the case for a hearing *(see People v Marshall, supra).*Santucci, J.P., Florio, Smith and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Scott Hungreder, Petitioner, v Raymond W. Kelly, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

[812 NYS2d 2]

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated July 14, 2004, which imposed upon petitioner a forfeiture of 45 vacation days, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Faviola A. Soto, J.], entered January 5, 2005) dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s findings that, following an incident in which a civilian was forcibly detained by petitioner and three other officers with whom he was on patrol, petitioner, in violation of the Police Department’s Patrol Guide, failed to prepare and submit a stop and frisk report, to maintain his activity log, to conduct a warrant check and to request the presence of a patrol supervisor at the scene, are supported by substantial evidence (see *300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). Petitioner’s contention that the departmental *497rules cannot be reasonably construed to require his performance of the omitted tasks because he issued no summons in connection with the subject forcible detention is without merit.

The penalty is not so disproportionate to the offenses petitioner was found to have committed as to shock our sense of fairness *(see Matter of Kelly v Safir,*96 NY2d 32 [2001]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02260-WYD

EUGENE DURAN,

Applicant,

v.

RAE TIMME, Warden CTCF, and 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents. 

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL

This matter is before me on the motion titled “Applicant’s Motion Requesting

Court to Reconsider Previously Filed Motion for Appointment of Counsel” (ECF No. 46)

that Applicant, Eugene Duran, submitted to and filed with the court on October 15,

2012. The motion is DENIED. Applicant continues to have thirty (30) days from the

date of the Answer to Application (ECF No. 47) filed on October 30, 2012, to file a

reply, if he desires. 

Dated: October 31, 2012

 

Case 1:11-cv-02260-WYD Document 48 Filed 10/31/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             995846
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1868994
<ALLOWANCES>                                       207666
<INVENTORY>                                        626262
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3625724
<PP&E>                                           12192891
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3196571
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   15587923
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            12661135
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                             5547
<OTHER-SE>                                        1101693
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     15587923
<SALES>                                          15122886
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 15122886
<CGS>                                             9858731
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    12227969
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 770607
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2124310
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2715508
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (591198)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       659208
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.13)




</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.50

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement ("Agreement") is entered
into between LOWRANCE ELECTRONICS, INC., a Delaware corporation having offices
at 12000 East Skelly Drive, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128 ("Employer" or "Company"), and
Douglas J. Townsdin, an individual currently residing at 3004 S Dogwood Place,
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma 74012 ("Employee"), to be effective as of April 7, 2004.

         In consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and obligations
contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

         1. RECITALS.

                  (a) Employer and Employee entered into a certain Employment
Agreement (the "Employment Agreement") dated as of April 7, 2000 (the "Effective
Date"). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement.

                  (b) The Initial Term of the Employment Agreement ended on
April 7, 2002, without either party having provided the other party with written
notice of termination.

                  (c) The Renewal Term of the Employment Agreement automatically
began on April 7, 2002, and will expire on April 7, 2004.

                  (d) Employer and Employee desire to enter into this Agreement
to extend the Renewal Term of the Employment Agreement for one (1) additional
year.

         2. AMENDMENT. The definition of "Renewal Term", as such term is used in
Exhibit A to the Employment Agreement, is hereby amended to mean the period
commencing on the expiration of the Initial Term and terminating on April 7,
2005. For purposes of the Employment Agreement, "Term" shall mean the period
commencing on the Effective Date and terminating upon the expiration of the
Renewal Term, as amended herein.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Employer and Employee have duly executed this
Agreement in multiple originals to be effective on the date first written above.

LOWRANCE ELECTRONICS, INC.                    EMPLOYEE

By: ________________________________          ______________________________
    Darrell J. Lowrance, President            Douglas J. Townsdin

This ____ day of ___________, 2004.           This ____ day of __________, 2004.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven H. Crowell

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00295-JL

Canam Steel Corporation

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on

September 15, 2008.

The Discovery Plan (document no. 29) is approved as

submitted.

Based on the discussions between the court and

counsel/parties at the conference, the following are stricken:

• the plaintiff’s claims for breach of the ECPA (Count IV)

and attorney’s fees and costs (Count V).

• the following affirmative defenses: none.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: September 15, 2008

cc: John P. Sherman, Esq.

Martha Van Oot, Esq.

Lisa Snow Wade, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00295-JL Document 30 Filed 09/15/08 Page 1 of 1
(January 19, 2006)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joel Murray, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 473]

Peters, J.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Nicandri, J.), rendered January 25, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree, and (2) by permission, from an order of said court (Main, Jr., J.), entered November 12, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction, without a hearing.

Defendant, charged with one count of promoting prison contraband in the first degree, pleaded guilty to one count of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree. His plea included a waiver of appeal except as to the sentence. Prior *912to sentencing, he unsuccessfully moved to withdraw his plea. A subsequent CPL 440.10 motion was denied without a hearing. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and, by permission, from the order denying his postconviction motion.

Defendant’s contention that the seven-month delay between the indictment and his arraignment was unreasonable is unpreserved for our review *(see People v Crosby,*293 AD2d 915, 916 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 696 [2002]). Next addressing his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea, we find the contention to survive the waiver of appeal and to be preserved by his motion to withdraw the plea *(see People v Batcher,*291 AD2d 581, 582 [2002]). The plea allocution, however, reflects a fully informed plea by a represented defendant, who expressly stated his awareness of the consequences of his plea as well as his satisfaction with counsel *(see People Lerario,*1 AD3d 635, 636 [2003], *lv denied*2 NY3d 742 [2004]; *People v Bolden,*289 AD2d 607, 609 [2001], *lv denied*98 NY2d 649 [2002]).

Such plea forecloses our review of defendant’s contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, alleging vindictive prosecution and a denial of an opportunity to testify before the grand jury *(see People v Perron,*6 AD3d 937, 938 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 645 [2004]; *People v Robertson,*279 AD2d 711, 712 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 805 [2001]). Moreover, County Court’s refhsal to assign defendant new counsel on his motion to withdraw the plea did not constitute an abuse of discretion *(see People v Bolden, supra*at 610); counsel’s failure to join in that motion did not relegate his assistance ineffective *(see People v Thornton,*242 AD2d 784, 785 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 881 [1997]).

Finally, addressing defendant’s contention that it was error to deny his CPL 440.10 motion without a hearing, it is well settled that such determination is discretionary with the trial court. Inasmuch as defendant’s motion did not expressly raise the issues of ineffective assistance or innocence, instead alleging only bare factual allegations in support of the motion, we find no error *(see People v Beverly,*5 AD3d 862, 865 [2004], *lv denied 2*NY3d 796 [2004]).

Mercure, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 959 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 959

  Supporting the Adopt-a-Platoon program, which encourages support to 
 deployed soldiers through letters, care packages, pen pal campaigns, 
                        and monetary donations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2008

  Mrs. Musgrave (for herself and Mr. Murtha) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Supporting the Adopt-a-Platoon program, which encourages support to 
 deployed soldiers through letters, care packages, pen pal campaigns, 
                        and monetary donations.

Whereas in 1998 the Adopt-a-Platoon Soldier Support Effort (``AAP'') was founded 
        as a nonprofit 501(c)(3);
Whereas the AAP is managed nationwide by volunteer mothers and fathers;
Whereas the AAP works to ensure that deployed United States Service members in 
        all branches of the military are not forgotten by providing needed mail 
        support;
Whereas the AAP works to ensure that the deployed United States Service members 
        in all branches of the military are provided a better deployment quality 
        of life;
Whereas the AAP works to lift the morale of all deployed United States Service 
        members in all branches of the military;
Whereas the AAP works to assist military families;
Whereas the AAP works to promote patriotism in our schools and communities; and
Whereas the AAP effort is bipartisan and takes no stand on any conflict the 
        United States may be in: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the 
contributions of the Adopt-a-Platoon Solider Support Effort for 
supporting deployed United States Service members in all branches of 
the military.
                                 <all>
```
B.2. Delinquent Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Share of outstanding farm production

Estimated volume (billions of dollars) loans (percent)

Nonperforming Nonperforming 

Past due Past due

30 to 89 Past due 30 to 89 Past due

days, 90 days, Non- days, 90 days, NonPeriod Total accruing Total accruing accruing Total accuring Total accruing accruing

1999...... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .8 1.3 .2 1.1

2000...... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .9 1.2 .2 1.0

2001...... 1.3 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.7 1.2 1.5 .2 1.3

2002...... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

2003...... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

2004...... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .5 1.0 .2 .9

2005...... .6 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

2006...... .7 .4 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2007...... .7 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2008...... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.5 .8 .6 .1 .5

2009...... 1.8 .8 1.1 .1 1.0 3.1 1.3 1.8 .2 1.6

2002: Q3... 1.3 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

2003: Q1... 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6 4.0 2.1 1.9 .4 1.5

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .9 .2 .7 3.1 1.1 2.0 .5 1.5

 Q3... 1.2 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

2004: Q1... 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5 3.0 1.3 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q2... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .7 1.3 .3 1.0

 Q3... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.7 .6 1.1 .2 .9

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .5 1.0 .2 .9

2005: Q1... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.3 1.2 1.1 .3 .9

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .3 .8

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .5 .8 .2 .6

 Q4... .6 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

2006: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.8 1.1 .8 .2 .5

 Q2... .7 .3 .4 .1 .2 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

 Q3... .6 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.2 .5 .7 .2 .5

 Q4... .7 .4 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2007: Q1... 1.0 .6 .4 .1 .3 1.9 1.1 .8 .3 .5

 Q2... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .7 .9 .2 .7

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.2 .5 .7 .2 .6

 Q4... .7 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2008: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.7 1.0 .7 .2 .5

 Q2... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.4 .7 .7 .2 .5

 Q3... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

 Q4... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.5 .8 .6 .1 .5

2009: Q1... 1.4 .7 .6 .2 .5 2.5 1.4 1.2 .3 .9

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .8 .2 .7 2.4 .9 1.5 .3 1.2

 Q3... 1.4 .6 .8 .1 .7 2.4 1.0 1.4 .3 1.1

 Q4... 1.8 .8 1.1 .1 1.0 3.1 1.3 1.8 .2 1.6

 Note. Data are estimates of the national totals for non-real-estate farm loans. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign

results for large banks that report farm delinquencies on a consolidated basis and for small banks that are allowed to report

delinquencies according to their internal definition of agricultural loans. Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data

are as of end of quarter.

22
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02244-RM-MJW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

RICHARD WILMER, and

ROCK WEISS,

Defendant(s).

MINUTE ORDER 

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

Based upon this court’s Minute Order (docket no. 115) and for those reasons

stated in Defendant Rock Weiss’ Response (docket no. 106-1), which was accepted for

filing and is now filed as Response (docket no. 123), it is hereby ORDERED that

Plaintiff USA’s Motion for Conditional Order on Costs (docket no. 89) is DENIED.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff USA’s Motion for Clarification and Order

on Costs Witnesses (docket no. 90) is GRANTED as follows. Plaintiff USA shall

present cost witnesses at trial, noting that the STIPULATIONS outlined in the Final

Pretrial Order have been STRICKEN by this court. See docket no. 115. 

Date: June 26, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-02244-RM-MJW Document 124 Filed 06/26/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
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: 10Federal Reserve Bank of: Kansas CityFilings received during the week ending February 9, 2008FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodAMERISTATE BANK                                                                                                         PremisesAmeriState Bank, Atoka, Oklahoma, to increase its investment in bank premises in the amount of $850,000.Newspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: Not applicableENB ACQUISITION CORPORATION                                                                                             * 3A1ENB Acquisition Corporation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to become a bank holding company through the acquisition of 100 percent of the voting shares of Exchange Bancshares of Moore, Inc., parent of Exchange National Bank of Moore, Moore, Oklahoma.Newspaper: 02/22/2008Federal Register: 03/03/2008FREEDOM BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                                CICNotice by Kelly J. Schoen to acquire control of Freedom Bancshares, Inc., parent of Freedom Bank, all of Overland Park, Kansas, through the acquisition of voting shares.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 02/21/2008UNITED BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                                 * 3A1United Bancshares, Inc., Garden City, Kansas, to become a bank holding company through the acquisition of 100 percent of the voting shares of Garden City State Bank, Garden City, Kansas.Newspaper: 03/05/2008Federal Register: 03/06/2008UNITED BANK & TRUST                                                                                                     * 18C
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Simulations Plus, Inc., a California corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 28, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Walter S. Woltosz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Momoko A. Beran, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that to his/her knowledge:





(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 result of operations of the Company.









/s/Walter S. Woltosz


Walter S. Woltosz


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)


April 14, 2010








/s/Momoko A. Beran


Momoko A. Beran


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)


April 14, 2010





(A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Simulations Plus, Inc. and will be retained by Simulations Plus, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.)