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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cv-028-PB

Philip B. Spitz

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In an order dated July 27, 2011, the court granted plaintiff's 

motion to compel post-judgment discovery and ordered defendant to 

appear before the court on September 2, 2011, for a hearing to 

establish a schedule for periodic payment of the judgment (doc. no. 

12) and referred the matter to this magistrate judge. In accordance 

with the July 27 order, a hearing was held on September 2, 2011. 

Michael T. McCormack, Esquire, appeared for plaintiff; defendant did 

not appear. The docket reflects that the clerk’s office mailed 

defendant a copy of the July 27 order to his last known address. At 

the hearing, Mr. McCormack indicated that his office had also 

forwarded a copy of the July 27 order to defendant's last known 

address. Before the close of the hearing, Mr. McCormack asked for 

this court to issue an order for defendant to "show cause" why he 

should not be held in contempt for his failure to appear. Mr. 

Case 1:08-cv-00028-PB Document 14 Filed 09/02/11 Page 1 of 2
2

McCormack will file a motion requesting the same on today’s date. 

I recommend that the motion be granted and the defendant be ordered 

to appear and show cause why he should not be found in civil contempt. 

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed 

within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this notice. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file objections within the specified 

time waives the right to appeal the district court’s order. See Sch. 

Union No. 37 v. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 

2010); United States v. Lugo Guerrero, 524 F.3d 5, 14 (1st Cir. 2008). 

_____________________________

Landya B. McCafferty

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: September 2, 2011

cc: Michael T. McCormack, Esq.

John J. Farley, Esq.

Philip B. Spitz

Case 1:08-cv-00028-PB Document 14 Filed 09/02/11 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2109 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2109

    To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special 
 resource study of Virginia Key Beach, Florida, for possible inclusion 
                      in the National Park System.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2001

Mrs. Meek of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                     to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special 
 resource study of Virginia Key Beach, Florida, for possible inclusion 
                      in the National Park System.

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

SECTION 1. STUDY AND REPORT.

    (a) Study.--The Secretary of the Interior (in this Act referred to 
as ``the Secretary'') shall conduct a study of Virginia Key Beach in 
Biscayne Bay, Florida, which was used for recreation by African 
Americans at a time when public beaches were racially segregated by 
law. The study shall evaluate the national significance of the site and 
the suitability and feasibility of establishing the site as a unit of 
the National Park System.
    (b) Criteria.--In conducting the study required by subsection (a), 
the Secretary shall use the criteria for the study of areas for 
potential inclusion in the National Park System contained in section 8 
of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5; popularly known as the National 
Park System General Authorities Act).
    (c) Report.--Upon completion of the study, the Secretary shall 
transmit to the Congress a report on the findings of the study and the 
conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00344-PAB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. ARMANDO CONTRERAS-GARCIA,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATES AND DEADLINES

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter has been scheduled for a three-day jury trial on the docket of Judge

Philip A. Brimmer in the U.S. District Courthouse, Courtroom A701, 7th Floor, 901 19th

Street, Denver, Colorado, to commence on November 7, 2011 at 8:00 a.m. It is

ORDERED that all pretrial motions shall be filed by October 12, 2011 and

responses to these motions shall be filed by October 19, 2011. It is further

ORDERED that expert witness disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 shall

be made no later than seven days before the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any

challenges to such experts shall be made by the pretrial motion filing deadline. It is

further

ORDERED that disclosures regarding rebuttal expert witnesses shall be made

one week after the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any challenges to such

experts shall be made no later than two weeks after the pretrial motions deadline. It is

further
2

ORDERED that a Trial Preparation Conference is set for November 4, 2011 at

8:00 a.m. in Courtroom A701. Lead counsel who will try the case shall attend in

person. 

The parties shall be prepared to address the following issues at the Trial

Preparation Conference:

1) jury selection;

2) sequestration of witnesses;

3) timing of presentation of witnesses and evidence;

4) anticipated evidentiary issues;

5) any stipulations as to fact or law; and

6) any other issue affecting the duration or course of the trial. 

DATED September 15, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge
Case 1:11-cv-02184-LTB Document 7 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-02184-LTB Document 7 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-02184-LTB Document 7 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-02184-LTB Document 7 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-02184-LTB Document 7 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5
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: 6Federal Reserve Bank of: AtlantaFilings received during the week ending September 27, 2014FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBANCO DE CREDITO E INVERSIONES S.A.                                                                                     * 3A1Banco De Credito E Inversiones, Empresas Juan Yarur S.A.C., Inversiones Petro S.A., Inversiones Baquio LTDA., Inversiones Nueve LTDA., and Administraciones Baquio LTDA., all of Santiago, Chile, to become bank holding companies by acquiring 100 percent of CM Florida Holdings, Inc., Coral Gables, Florida, and its subsidiary, City National Bank of Florida, Miami, Florida.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 08/08/2013PILOT BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                                  CICPilot Bancshares, Inc., Tampa, Florida, after-the-fact change in control notice filed by George League Southworth, Tampa, Florida, to retain 12.36 percent of the outstanding shares of common stock of Pilot Bancshares, Inc., and its subsidiary, Pilot Bank, both of Tampa, Florida.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 09/16/2014STATE BANK FINANCIAL CORPORATION                                                                                        * 3A5State Bank Financial Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia, to merge with Georgia-Carolina Bancshares, Inc., and thereby acquire its subsidiary, First Bank of Georgia, both of Augusta, Georgia.Newspaper: 10/26/2014Federal Register: 10/24/2014
Case 1:11-cv-02249-BNB Document 3 Filed 09/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02249-BNB Document 3 Filed 09/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02249-BNB Document 3 Filed 09/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02249-BNB Document 3 Filed 09/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
Amendment to 2003 Long Term Incentive Plan dated February 27, 2004



 Exhibit 10.14 
  
 AMENDMENT TO MOORE WALLACE INCORPORATED 2003 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
  
 The Moore Wallace Incorporated 2003 Long Term Incentive Plan, as amended October 15, 2003 (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows effective February 27, 2004.
All defined terms not defined herein shall have the definitions set forth in the Plan. 
  

	 	1.	The term “Company” shall mean R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company. 

  

	 	2.	“Common Shares” shall mean the shares of common stock of the Company. 

  

	 	3.	The number of Common Shares which may be issued pursuant to Awards under the Plan shall not exceed 6,300,000 (and in determining the number of Common Shares which may be issued
pursuant to Awards under the Plan, Awards made in respect of common shares of Moore Wallace Incorporated shall be adjusted in the same manner that common shares of Moore Wallace Incorporated and Awards in respect of common shares of Moore Wallace
Incorporated were adjusted under the terms of the combination involving Moore Wallace Incorporated and R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company).
HARRY HENDERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-3146

Opinion filed August 6, 2014.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

Harry Henderson, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the 

merits.

WOLF, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Media Sciences International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), I, Kevan D. Bloomgren, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date: November 13, 2009

 
|   | /s/ Kevan D. Bloomgren  |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Kevan D. Bloomgren      |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02178-RPM-KLM

COURTNEY TURNER,

ROBERT ST. JOHN, and

JONATHAN HEIL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SUPERIOR SATELLITE COMPANY, INC.,

CHRIS GNETZ, and

SCOTT NEUMAN,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to Show Cause

Why Third-Party Dish Network Should Not Be Held in Contempt for Failure to Comply

with Subpoena [Docket No. 1; Filed August 19, 2011]. The Motion does not comply with

the Local Rules in several respects, the most notable deficiency being that neither the

Motion nor any of the additional filings on the docket related to the Motion [Docket Nos. 2-4]

contain a certificate of service indicating that the third-party subpoena recipient, DISH

Network, was given notice pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.1G. While Plaintiffs certify that

they served a copy of the Motion and accompanying documents on Defendants [Docket

No. 4], they do not certify the same for DISH Network. Moreover, the Motion does not

contain a clear certification of compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A., and the caption on

Plaintiffs’ pleadings does not comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1J. The Motion is subject

to denial on any basis listed above. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED without prejudice. Counsel

shall read and comply with all Local Rules. Should counsel choose to refile the Motion, the

most efficient and preferred way to do so is to file a Motion which incorporates the brief and

required certificates and attaches any necessary affidavits or exhibits.

Dated: August 22, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02178-RPM-KLM Document 6 Filed 08/22/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - [Report No. 2875] 

A Petition for Reconsideration has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR section 1.429(e). The full text of this document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). Oppositions to this petition must be filed by October 10, 2008. See section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired. 

*Subject:*                     In the Matter of Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses (MB Docket No. 07-57).  XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc., Transferor to Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., Transferee.                 

*Number of Petitions Filed:*                     1.                 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-22601 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 09-cr-16-01-JD

Candy Kriyanovich

O R D E R

Defendant appeared for a bail revocation hearing pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3148. Defendant stipulated to the basis for the bail

violation petition but argued for continued bail because the

likely sentence is probation. Probation has given her a number

of second chances and she is non-compliant. Given the number of

failed opportunities to comply with conditions I find that the

defendant is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of

conditions. The conditions of release are revoked.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

pending trial. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his designated representative for confinement in a

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On

Case 1:09-cr-00016-JD Document 45 Filed 04/16/09 Page 1 of 2
2

order of a court of the United States or on request of an

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

___________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 16, 2009 

cc: Mark S. Zuckerman, Esq.

 Mark E. Howard, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:09-cr-00016-JD Document 45 Filed 04/16/09 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01734-PAB-BNB

DANIEL LEROY RHODEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RYAN O’HAYRE, in His Official and Individual Capacity, and

STUART RUYBAL, in His Official and Individual Capacity,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on the following:

(1) The First Amended Motion by Attorney Daniel H. Kyser for Permission to

Withdraw Appearance [Doc. # 69, filed 7/30/2013] (the “Motion to Withdraw”); and

(2) Defendants’ Unopposed Fourth Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. # 72,

filed 8/1/2013] (the “Motion for Extension”).

I held a hearing on the motions this morning and made rulings on the record, which are

incorporated here.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Motion to Withdraw [Doc. # 69] is GRANTED, and Daniel H. Kyser of the

Law Office of Daniel H. Kyser, L.L.C., is relieved of any continuing responsibility in the case. I

caution the plaintiff that he personally is responsible for complying with all court orders and

time limitations established by any applicable court rules.

(2) The Motion for Extension [Doc. # 72] is GRANTED, and the case schedule is

Case 1:11-cv-01734-PAB-BNB Document 75 Filed 08/07/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

modified to the following extent:

Discovery Cut-Off: November 22, 2013

(All discovery must be completed by the discovery cut-off. All

written discovery must be served so that responses are due on or

before the discovery cut-off.)

Dispositive Motions Deadline: December 27, 2013

 

Final Pretrial Conference: The final pretrial conference scheduled for November

18, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., is VACATED and RESET to February 20, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in

Courtroom 401, 4th floor, Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver,

Colorado. A Final Pretrial Order shall be prepared by the parties and submitted to the court no

later than February 13, 2014.

Dated August 7, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01734-PAB-BNB Document 75 Filed 08/07/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ROBERT EARL JACKSON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-10321

D.C. No. 3:94-cr-00044-ECR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Edward C. Reed, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Robert Earl Jackson appeals from the district court’s order denying his 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jackson contends that the district court erred by failing to reduce his

FILED

OCT 05 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Jackson was responsible for approximately 14 kilograms of crack cocaine. 1

2 09-10321

sentence pursuant to Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines,

which lowered the sentencing range for offenses involving crack cocaine. 

However, Amendment 706 did not lower the base offense level for crack offenses

that equal or exceed 4.5 kilograms. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2008). Thus, 1

Jackson’s sentence is not based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been

lowered by the Sentencing Commission, as required by Section 3582(c)(2). See

United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir. 2009). Jackson’s argument

that Leniear is distinguishable because it involved the “grouping” provision of the

Guidelines is without merit. See id.

 Jackson’s argument that application of Leniear improperly delegates

authority from Congress to the Sentencing Commission to define the subjectmatter jurisdiction of the federal courts is also without merit. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (conferring jurisdiction upon the district court to modify a term of

imprisonment for a defendant whose sentence was based on a range that has

subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission); see also Dillon v.

United States, 130 S. Ct. 2692 (2010).

Jackson’s request for a stay is denied. 

AFFIRMED.
Chart 1

Number, Size, and Volume of Non-real-estate Farm Loans, 1980-2009

 -- Four-quarter moving average.

 Source. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers.

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

1

2

3

4

5

Number of non-real-estate farm loans Millions, annual rate

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Average size of non-real-estate farm loans

Thousands of dollars

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

25

50

75

100

125

Volume of non-real-estate farm loans

3

Billions of dollars, annual rate
Chart 2

Maturity and Interest Rate of Non-real-estate Farm Loans, 1980-2009

 Note. Effective (compounded) annual interest rates are calculated from the stated rate and other

 terms of the loans and weighted by loan size.

 -- Four-quarter moving average.

 Source. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers.

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

4

8

12

16

Average maturity of non-real-estate farm loans 20

Months

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

4

8

12

16

Average effective interest rate on non-real-estate farm loans 20

Percent

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

0

25

50

75

100 Share of farm loans with a floating interest rate

4

Percent
| Period | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total |
|--------|----|----|----|----|-------|
| 1981   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 1982   | 2  | 3  | 3  | 3  | 11    |
| 1983   | 1  | 1  | 2  | 3  | 7     |
| 1984   | 3  | 7  | 10 | 12 | 32    |
| 1985   | 12 | 21 | 17 | 18 | 68    |
| 1986   | 14 | 14 | 21 | 16 | 65    |
| 1987   | 22 | 19 | 12 | 16 | 69    |
| 1988   | 11 | 6  | 12 | 7  | 36    |
| 1989   | 5  | 7  | 5  | 5  | 22    |
| 1990   | 3  | 5  | 6  | 3  | 17    |
| 1991   | 2  | 2  | 3  | 1  | 8     |
| 1992   | 1  | 1  | 1  | 4  | 7     |
| 1993   | 1  | 2  | 2  | 0  | 5     |
| 1994   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1995   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1996   | 0  | 2  | 0  | 0  | 2     |
| 1997   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 1     |
| 1998   | 0  | 0  | 1  | 0  | 1     |
| 1999   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2000   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2001   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2002   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 2     |
| 2003   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2004   | 0  | 1  | .  | .  | .     |