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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00355-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. WAUNITA WEINGART

2. JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS

3. ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART

Defendants.

 

ORDER AND NOTICE OF CHANGE OF PLEA AND SENTENCING HEARINGS

 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court following the filing of a Notice of Disposition 

(#221) on February 19, 2013, by Defendant Alois Craig Weingart. The Court construes this

Notice as a motion to change his/her plea and to have the Court consider the terms of the parties’

plea agreement.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) and (I), the speedy trial clock is tolled

pending determination of those matters. 

2. A Change of Plea hearing is set for April 8, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. and a Sentencing

hearing is set for July 8, 2013, at 10:30 a.m. in the United States District Court

for the District of Colorado, Courtroom A901, Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse,
1

 In criminal cases originating from the Grand Junction or Durango Jury Divisions of this Court, counsel

shall be prepared to advise the Court at the time of the change of plea hearing whether a written request to have the

sentencing hearing conducted at the courthouse in either Grand Junction or Durango will be filed. See

Administrative Order 2007-8.

901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.1

3. The final trial preparation conference set for March 13, 2013, and the March 18,

2013, trial date are VACATED.

DATED this 21st day of February, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

Chief United States District Judge
#### In the Matter of Westmoreland Coal Company, Respondent, v Entech, Inc., Appellant.

[744 NYS2d 326]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered January 17, 2002, which granted the petition pursuant to CPLR article 76 and directed that all objections to the subject closing date certificate are properly, and shall be, resolved by certain independent accountants, with related relief, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The purchase price adjustment clause of the parties’ stock purchase agreement unambiguously requires that any material objection to the closing date certificate be submitted to the independent accountants proceeding *(see, Luxottica Group, S.p.A. v Bausch & Lomb Inc.,*160 F Supp 2d 552, 554-555; *Matter of Rockwell Intl. Corp. [BTR Dunlop],*192 AD2d 454, 457). Appellant seller would narrow the contract so that the purchase price adjustment clause applies only to changes between the interim financial statements and the closing date certificate *(see, e.g., Matter of Melun Indus., Inc. [Strange],*898 F Supp 990, 993). However, absent clear, specific terms to that effect, we decline to find that respondent buyer agreed to limit the scope of the purchase price adjustment clause *(see, Matter of Tax Foreclosure Action No. 39,*202 AD2d 328, 329). It is for the independent accountants to decide whether any individual objection is sufficiently “material” to warrant an adjustment, based on the documentation that will be taken by that panel *(cf., Sisters of St. John the Baptist v Phillips R. Geraghty Constructor,*67 NY2d 997, 999). We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 09-cr-11-PB

Joseph Delgado, et al.

O R D E R

Defendant Rupert Pamphile, through counsel, has moved to

continue the trial scheduled for September 1, 2009, citing newly

appointed counsel and the need for additional time to finalize

discovery and prepare for trial. The government does not object

to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from September 1, 2009 to November 3, 2009. 

In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy

trial.

Case 1:09-cr-00011-PB Document 47 Filed 08/25/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on October

23, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. 

No further continuances.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 25, 2009

cc: Tony Soltani, Esq.

John Pendleton, Esq.

Ray Raimo, Esq.

Terry Ollila, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:09-cr-00011-PB Document 47 Filed 08/25/09 Page 2 of 2
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: 5Federal Reserve Bank of: RichmondFilings received during the week ending September 20, 2008FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodHERITAGE BANK                                                                                                           * BranchHeritage Bank, Norfolk, Virginia, proposes to establish a branch at 1756 Laskin Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia.Newspaper: 09/30/2008Federal Register: Not applicableVIRGINIA BUSINESS BANK                                                                                                  * BranchVirginia Business Bank, Richmond, Virginia, to establish a branch at 1317 Executive Boulevard, Suite 110, Chesapeake, Virginia, and to provide a courier service to pick up deposits from customers in Norfolk, Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, and Suffolk, Virginia.Newspaper: 10/05/2008Federal Register: Not applicableVIRGINIA COMMERCE BANK                                                                                                  * BranchVirginia Commerce Bank, Arlington, Virginia, proposes to establish a branch at 6375 Multiplex Drive, Centreville, Virginia.Newspaper: 09/26/2008Federal Register: Not applicableVIRGINIA COMMERCE BANK                                                                                                  * BranchVirginia Commerce Bank, Arlington, Virginia, proposes to establish a branch at Lot 5A Parcels A&B, Section 1 "Princeton Woods Shopping Center," Dumfries, Virginia.Newspaper: 10/03/2008Federal Register: Not applicable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RONSEAN JOHNSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 325 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RONSEAN JOHNSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 326 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of April, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

                            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 fiscal Quarter ended September 30,
2003, 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, to my best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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

Date:  November 14, 2003
                                           /s/   Richard P. Franke
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Richard P. Franke
                                           CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
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: 3Federal Reserve Bank of: PhiladelphiaFilings received during the week ending December 11, 2010FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodASIAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION                                                                                             CICJames Wang, individually, and James Wang and Ellen Ruth KaoWang, Villanova, PA, Tony Yi Ping Wang and Michelle Yichun Yang, Gladwyne, PA, Elliot Hong Wai Wong, Philadelphia, PA and Josephine Wang, Gladwyne, PA, Aubrey Hui-Ju Wang, Havertown, PA, and Janet Wang Calilung, Irvine, CA, to acquire up 70.0% of Asian Financial Corporation, Philadelphia, PA.Newspaper: 12/24/2010Federal Register: 12/17/2010WARBURG PINCUS PRIVATE EQUITY X, L.P.                                                                                   CICWarburg Pincus Private Equity S, L.P., New York, NY, to acquire up to 19.7% of National Penn Bancshares, Inc, Boyertown, PA.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 12/08/2010
[No. 34440.

Department One.

May 15, 1958.]

#### Kitsap County Credit Bureau, Inc., *Appellant,*v. Hobson D. Richards *et al., Respondents.**1*

*Gerard N. Fisher,*for appellant.

*Purvis & Sanchez,*for respondents.

1

Reported in 325 P. (2d) 292.

Hunter, J.

The Texas Company assigned to the plaintiff Kitsap County Credit Bureau for collection the balance due on the open account of Robert M. Alderman. Thereafter, the credit bureau instituted this action against Hobson D. Richards and wife alleging that the defendant Richards had guaranteed the Alderman account and that the same was unpaid.

During the trial, H. E. Turner, collection manager for the Texas Company, was called as a witness for the plaintiff and, in explaining the Alderman account, he voluntarily produced a card from the records of the Texas Company showing the account had been “charged off” and a one hundred dollar compromise settlement had been “O.K.’d.” He testified, in part, as follows:

> “I think, trying to recall it, there was some discussion about Alderman being married and that is, the account was *382prenuptial and it seemed the agency wanted to settle. This is hazy. They wanted to settle with him and let him be discharged for $100. Now, that is the best I can tell you. The Court: So you did settle with Mr. Alderman and agreed to discharge him for $100? The Witness: I assume so.”

Prior to the plaintiff completing its case in chief and over its objection, the trial court, on its own motion, ordered a dismissal of the cause. The court found, in part:

> “That the plaintiff did fail to prove the principal account indebtedness for which the above-entitled action was initiated and did fail to prove that either the defendant, Hobson D. Richards, or the debtor herein, Robert A. Aider-man, was indebted to The Texas Company or the plaintiff herein in any sums of money whatsoever.”

From the judgment entered, this appeal followed.

There is no need in this case to discuss the appellant’s assignments of error. Suffice it to say, we have carefully reviewed the record and, in particular, the testimony of H. E. Turner concerning the compromise settlement of the account, and we are convinced that the debt against the principal debtor Robert M. Alderman was settled upon his payment of one hundred dollars. Thus, applying the rule that a creditor’s unconditional release of the principal debtor discharges the guarantor, the trial court properly dismissed the appellant’s cause. See *Keane v. Fidelity Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*173 Wash. 199, 22 P. (2d) 59 (1933); Simpson on Suretyship, 296, § 63; Restatement, Security 322, § 122; 24 Am. Jur. 930, § 87.

We are not concerned with whether this was the principal reason relied upon by the trial court when it entered judgment, since it is a well-established rule that a judgment, even where based on an erroneous ground, will be sustained if correct upon any ground within the pleadings and established by the proof. *LaHue v. Coca Cola Bottling, Inc.,*50 Wn. (2d) 645, 314 P. (2d) 421 (1957). Here, the appellant’s proof affirmatively precluded any recovery.

The judgment is affirmed.

Hill, C. J., Mallery, Finley, and Ott, JJ., concur.
H. Res. 860 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 12, 2007. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 

the bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 

year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of 

the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel 

strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. All 

points of order against the conference report and against its 

consideration are waived. 

SEC. 2. The House being in possession of the official papers, the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on H.R. 

3093 shall be, and they are hereby, discharged to the end 
2 

•HRES 860 EH 

that H.R. 3093 and its accompanying papers, be, and they 

are hereby, laid on the table. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 188 (Friday, September 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22681]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-8586-1]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental 
Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and 
section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. 
Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of 
Federal Activities at 202-564-7146. An explanation of the ratings 
assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published 
in FR dated April 6, 2008 (73 FR 19833).

Draft EISs

EIS No. 20080240, ERP No. D-BLM-A09825-00, PROGRAMMATIC--Geothermal 
Leasing in the Western United States.

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to air 
quality, groundwater and noise. Rating EC2.

Final EISs

EIS No. 20080275, ERP No. F-NOA-L39066-WA, ADOPTION--Fish Passage and 
Aquatic Habitat Restoration at Hemlock Dam, Implementation, Gifford 
Pinchot National Forest, Mount Adams District, Skamania County, WA.

    Summary: No comment letter sent to the federal agency.

EIS No. 20080295, ERP No. F-FHW-C40171-NY, NYS Route 17 at Exit 122 
Interchange Project, To Improve the Safety and Operation, Right-of-Way 
Acquisition, Town of Wallkill, Orange County, NY.

    Summary: EPA continues to have environmental concerns about 
wetland, water quality, and air quality impacts.

EIS No. 20080300, ERP No. F-BLM-K65296-AZ, Agua Fria National Monument 
and Bradshaw-Harquahala, Proposed Resource Management Plan, 
Implementation, Yavapai County, AZ.

    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project.

EIS No. 20080308, ERP No. F-SFW-L61233-WA, Hanford Reach National 
Monument Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Management of Monument 
Resources, Programs and Visitors for the Next 15 Years, Adams, Benton, 
Franklin and Grant Counties, WA.

    Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

    Dated: September 23, 2008.
Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
 [FR Doc. E8-22681 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Stanley Stephenson, Appellant, v New York City Department of Correction et al., Respondents.

[805 NYS2d 835]

*348Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Denis J. Boyle, J.), entered April 15, 2004, dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the dismissal vacated, the petition deemed to be one filed pursuant to CPLR article 78 and reinstated as such, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

As respondents concede, since petitioner could not be released from custody even if the challenged administrative determination were overturned, the proceeding should have been converted to an article 78 proceeding *(see People ex rel. Dawson v Smith,*69 NY2d 689, 690 [1986]). We, accordingly, deem the matter to have been brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 and remand for respondents’ submission of the administrative record and resolution of any issues appropriately addressed prior to this Court’s consideration of whether there is substantial evidence to support the challenged determination. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.
Exhibit 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Radyne ComStream Inc.:

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
     of Radyne ComStream Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-23159) filed as of March
     12, 1997, Form S-8 (File No.  333-67469)  filed as of November 19, 1998 and
     amended as of May 5, 1999,  and Form S-8 (File No.  333-90383)  filed as of
     November 5, 1999, of our report dated February 4, 2000, on the consolidated
     balance  sheets of Radyne  ComStream  Inc. as of December 31, 1999 and 1998
     and the related statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficiency)
     and cash  flows for the years  then  ended,  which  report  appears  in the
     December 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of Radyne ComStream Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
March 1, 2000
#### Samuel C. STEPHENS, Petitioner, v. Nathan MAYO, as Prison Custodian of the State of Florida, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

Dec. 21, 1954.

Samuel C. Stephens, in pro. per.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice.

Petitioner was tried and convicted on an information pursuant to F.S. § 856.04, F.S.A., charging in the first count that he did on the 1st day of September, 1953 unlawfully desert his eight minor children, to-wit: Sammie Stephens, Mary Lou Stephens, Wendell Stephens, Maxie Stephens, Lucretia Stephens, Robert Stephens, Zell Stephens and James David Stephens. Second Count charges that petitioner did from the 1st day of September 1953 to the 20th day of December 1953, in Hamilton County, Florida, unlawfully withhold the means of support from his said eight minor children. He was sentenced to serve one year in the State penitentiary on each count, the sentences to run consecutively.

By habeas corpus in this Court, petitioner challenges the validity of his sentence. He contends that one year is the limit that a sentence may be imposed on him under said statute, that he has already served one year, and that he is entitled to be discharged.

A similar question was before this Court and was adjudicated in Deal v. Mayo, 76 So.2d 275. It is admitted by respondent that the decision in the Deal case controls this case. We have examined the record and find this to be correct.

It is accordingly our view that petitioner is unlawfully detained and that he is entitled to be and is hereby discharged on authority of the last cited case.

It is so ordered.

MATHEWS, DREW and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-23 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 4
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-23 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 4
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-23 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 4
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-23 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. JOSEPH CHARLES SMITH, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 84 WAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 10th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
#### Abra Faith NEWMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; William N. Alexander, II, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 03-6462.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 20, 2003.

Abra Faith Newman, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Abra Faith Newman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and denying her motion for reconsideration. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a *274habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability mil not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Newman has not made the requisite showing. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Newman’s motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot Newman’s motion to hold the appeal in abeyance. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-12-00716-CV

Maria SANCHEZ d/b/a Progressive Painters,

Appellant

v.

Michael SCHROECK and Rebecca Schroeck,

Appellees

From the 33rd District Court, Burnet County, Texas

Trial Court No. 38284

Honorable Guilford L. Jones, III, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

REVERSED and the cause REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.

It is ordered that appellant recover her costs of appeal from appellees.

SIGNED June 26, 2013.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice