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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-232-PB

Efrain Perez

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

April 1, 2008 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete discovery and engage in plea

negotiations or 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 April 1, 2008 to June 3, 2008. 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 defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:07-cr-00232-PB Document 15 Filed 03/28/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The March 28, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued to

May 20, 2008 at 4:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

March 28, 2008

cc: Jessica Brown, Esq.

Jennifer Davis, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00232-PB Document 15 Filed 03/28/08 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Bimal Mukhopadhyay, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[745 NYS2d 424]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about October 31, 2000, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner a managerial pay increase, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record is devoid of any basis for a claim that the challenged determination was arbitrary and capricious *(see, Matter of 601 Realty Corp. v City of N.Y. Dept. of Health,*269 AD2d 268). Since petitioner was not demoted, dismissed or otherwise subject to disciplinary action, his claim that he was entitled to a pretermination hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 (1) is incorrect. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.
IV 

★

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 96 

Supporting the establishment and full funding of a staff exchange program 

between the House of Representatives and the Parliament of Ukraine, 

the Verkhovna Rada, as soon as possible. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 24, 2007 

Ms. KAPTUR (for herself, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. LEVIN, and Mr. BARTLETT of 

Maryland) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the establishment and full funding of a staff 

exchange program between the House of Representatives 

and the Parliament of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada, 

as soon as possible. 

Whereas supporters of democracy worldwide recognize the 

valor of the people of Ukraine in seeking to advance 

democratic governance in their country; 

Whereas the role of the Parliament of Ukraine, the 

Verkhovna Rada, is essential to ensuring democratic governance and a balance of power among the branches of 

the Government of Ukraine; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 96 IH1S 

Whereas the people of the United States affirm the positive 

role being played by the Parliament of Ukraine in averting a constitutional crisis in that transitional republic; 

Whereas on November 30, 1999, the Speaker of the House 

of Representatives signed an agreement with the leaders 

of the Parliament of Ukraine to establish an interparliamentary exchange program between the two legislative bodies; 

Whereas Members of the House of Representatives and the 

Parliament of Ukraine have already participated in video 

teleconferences as part of this agreement; and 

Whereas the House of Representatives has commended these 

historic efforts and expressed its desire and willingness to 

build on the success of this agreement: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 the establishment and full funding of a staff exchange pro3 gram between the House of Representatives and the Par4 liament of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada, as soon as pos5 sible. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
#### Bertha Steinhauser, Appellant, *v.*Charles H. Steinhauser, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

October 25, 1956.

*Jack Lindner*for appellant.

*John H. Mariano*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The only issue for determination on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, based on the record, was raised by defendant’s allegation that he paid plaintiff “ several hundred dollars ”. He failed completely, however, to establish any details with respect to such alleged payments. His allegations with respect to a modification of the Florida divorce decree are without merit. Two Justices of the Supreme Court, upon application by defendant to modify the decree based upon his allegation that the earnings of his wife entitled him to a reduction of the alimony of $28 per week, as provided in the Florida decree, to $10 per week, have indicated that the only manner in which he may obtain a modification of the Florida decree is by application to the Florida court, since this court must give full, faith and credit to the Florida decree, which is clear and unequivocal in its terms.

Accordingly, the court below should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to the extent of ordering an assessment of the amount due to plaintiff as arrears since the entry of the Florida decree, based upon alimony in the sum of $28 per week, as provided therein.

The order should be modified to the extent of remitting ease to the lower court for the sole purpose of assessing the amount due to plaintiff as arrears in alimony since the entry of the *540Florida decree, without consideration of the defendant’s allegations with respect to the modification of said decree or his contention that plaintiff’s alimony should be calculated on the basis of $10 weekly because of her earnings; and as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Edeb, Hecht and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000717238
<NAME> MACNEAL SCHWENDLER CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          10,822
<SECURITIES>                                    16,481
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,279
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,605
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,131
<PP&E>                                          29,308
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,493
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 138,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,595
<BONDS>                                         56,574
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,310
<OTHER-SE>                                    (14,623)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   138,829
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               125,397
<CGS>                                           46,255
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  135,438
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,322)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,558
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,456
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,175)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (196)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,979)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,979)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.95)
        

</TABLE>
ADDENDUM TO WARRANT TO PURCHSE COMMON STOCK

This Addendum to Warrant to Purchase Common Stock is entered into as of the 11th
day  of  May  2004  by  and  between  USA  Technologies,  Inc.,  a  Pennsylvania
corporation ("USA") and La Jolla Cove Investors,  Inc., a California corporation
("LJCI")

WHEREAS,  LJCI and USA are parties to that  certain  Warrant to Purchase  Common
Stock dated as of August 2, 2001 ("Conversion Warrant"; and

WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Conversion Warrant in certain respects.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and convenants contained
herein,  and  for  other  good  and  valuable  consideration,  the  receipt  and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, USA and LJCI agree as follows:

1.    All  terms  used  herein  shall  have  the  definitions  set  forth in the
      Conversion Warrant.

2.    USA shall deliver to LJCI by DWAC on or before May 14, 2004, the remaining
      12,510,000  Warrant  Shares that LJCI is entitled to under the  Conversion
      Warrant for the sum of $1,125,908  (which  represents an Exercise Price of
      $0.0908 on the  12,510,000  Warrant  Shares  hereunder  and the  1,000,000
      Warrant Shares received from the May 4, 2004 conversion Warrant exercise).
      The Warrant  Shares shall be delivered by USA to LJCI in three tranches of
      4,170,000  shares each. Upon  confirmation  that each tranche of 4,170,000
      Warrant Shares has been received,  LJCI shall immediately wire USA the sum
      of $375,303 for each tranche.

3.    The selling restrictions  contained in the Addendum to Warrant to Purchase
      Common Stock dated April 21, 2004 shall remain in full force and effect.

4.    Except as specifically  amended herein,  all other terms and conditions of
      the Conversion Warrant shall remain in full force and effect.

IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  USA and LJCI have  caused  this  Addendum  to  Warrant to
Purchase Common Stock to be signed by its duly  authorized  officers on the date
first set forth above.

USA Technologies, Inc.                  La Jolla Cove Investors, Inc.

By:  /s/George R. Jensen                By:   /s/Travis W. Huff
    ---------------------------------       ------------------------------------

Name: George R. Jensen                  Name: Travis Huff
     --------------------------------        -----------------------------------

Title: Chairman & CEO                   Title: Portfolio Mgr
      -------------------------------         ----------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02277-PAB-MJW

JACK DANIEL’S PROPERTIES, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

BEVERAGE RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Colorado corporation,

JAKK’D HOLDINGS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, and

JACK BARRECA, an individual,

Defendant(s).

MINUTE ORDER 

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion for Entry of Proposed

Protective Order (docket no. 28) is GRANTED finding good cause shown. The written

Protective Order (docket no. 28-1) is APPROVED as amended in paragraph 47 and

made an Order of Court. 

Date: November 28, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02277-PAB-MJW Document 31 Filed 11/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                            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 of Amscan Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Gerald C. Rittenberg, Chief Executive Officer and Michael A. Correale, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and

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


                                        /s/ Gerald C. Rittenberg
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Gerald C. Rittenberg
                                        Chief Executive Officer


                                        /s/ Michael A. Correale
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Michael A. Correale
                                        Chief Financial Officer

November 14, 2006
Order entered July 24 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00898
- CR
JOHN ANTHONY MARGETI S, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 9

Dallas County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No. MB12
- 51720
- K



### O RDER
The Court GRANTS court reporter Sandra Morelan’s July 23, 2014 request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We ORDER Ms. Morelan to file the record by AUGUST 22, 2014

.
/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### Max Beltran, Respondent, *v.*Margarete Kuhl et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

October 25, 1956.

*Albert A. Raphael, Jr.,*for appellants.

*Albert A. Klein*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

In this action for treble damages the proof shows conclusively that the landlord was not guilty of a willful violation and did not, after the making of the definitive order of the Rent Commission, collect any rent in excess of the maximum rental fixed thereby. The amount of overpayments previously collected is not disputed, nor the fact that landlord proffered payment thereof prior to the commencement of this action. However, landlord failed to include interest. Tenant is therefore entitled to costs (N. Y. City Mun. Ct. Code, § 164, subd. 3-a) upon the recovery of partial judgment, herewith directed, for the single amount of the overcharge with interest.

The order should be modified to the extent of granting partial judgment to plaintiff in the amount of $389.40, with interest and costs, and dismissing the balance of his claim, and as modified affirmed, without costs.

Eder, Hecht and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.
----

----

|        Exhibit      32.1                                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                             |
| Certification Pursuant      to18 U.S.C.      Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to |
| Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of      2002                                |

| 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. |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02323-BNB-KMT

DEJA FRANKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTH AMERICAN ASSET SERVICES, LLC d/b/a FRONTIER FINANCIAL GROUP,

INC., 

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

Good cause having been shown,

IT IS ORDERED that the Order to Show Cause [Doc. # 51] is DISCHARGED.

Dated June 8, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02323-BNB-KMT Document 55 Filed 06/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### PERSON v. ROY O. MARTIN LUMBER CO., Inc.

No. 5167.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 2, 1936.

John R. Hunter, of Alexandria, for appellant.

Julius T. Long, of Shreveport, for appel-lee.

DREW, Judge.

Plaintiff claims compensation from his employer in the amount of $3.90 per week for a period of 175 weeks, alleging that on March 22, 1933, while employed in his work in the scope of his employment, a heavy iron pipe, 8 feet long by 21⁄2 inches in diameter, fell a distance of 12 feet and struck him on the left foot, seriously and permanently injuring and impairing the bones, ligaments, nerves, and tissues in the entire foot, and in the ankle and leg up to the hip to such an extent that the leg and foot are permanently and totally disabled for any practical purpose.

Plaintiff further alleged that defendant paid him compensation for nine weeks at the rate of $3.90 per week and offered to pay him $7.80 more, provided he would take it in full settlement, which he refused to do. Pie prayed for judgment for the 175 weeks as above alleged, less a credit of the amount already paid.

Defendant admits the employment and that plaintiff was injured, but denies there was any injury other than to the fifth or little toe, and alleges it had paid plaintiff $35.10, which is all due him.

The lower court awarded plaintiff judgment in the sum of $3.90 per week for 125 weeks, less the amount of $35.10, from which judgment defendant has appealed.

The facts in the case are meager, the only witnesses who testified being plaintiff and Dr. J. M. Mosely, who examined him on the day of trial. The other evidence consists of statements made out of court by several physicians who had examined plaintiff, and one who had treated him immediately after the accident. Under the evidence in the case, it is impossible for this court to render an intelligent judgment. It is certain that plaintiff received an injury, but whether said injury caused the flat foot testified to by Dr. Mosely, or it was caused by other means than the injury received in the accident, is not shown by the testimony. The written statements in the record by the physicians for plaintiff and defendant do not in any way touch upon this claim of plaintiff. They were not sworn and were not examined in court or out of court by either counsel for plaintiff or defendant. In other words, the court is asked to render an opinion as to the injury of plaintiff and fix compensation due him without the assistance or help of testimony, as shown by the record, to be available.

*884We therefore conclude, in the interest of justice, that the judgment of the lower court should be reversed, and the case remanded to the lower court for a new *trial;*and it is so ordered.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [ES-956-1910-5EML], ES-055520 Group 28, Maine 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey; Maine. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States, Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days from the date of publication in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Attn: Cadastral Survey. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The survey was requested by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

The plat represents the dependent resurvey and survey of lands held in trust by the United States of America for the Penobscot Indian Nation in Lakeville Plantation, North of Bingham's Penobscot Purchase, Penobscot County, Maine. The survey was accepted on September 11, 2008. 

                    We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It will be available to the public as a matter of information. If BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on the plat, prior to the date of official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest.                           ( print page 54853)    

We will not officially file the plat until the day after we accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions on appeals. Copies of the plat will be made available upon request and prepayment of the reproduction fees. 

Dated: September 16, 2008. 

Ronald J. Eberle, 

Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor. 

[FR Doc. E8-22191 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No.11-cv-02235-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

OPHYLL D’COSTA; and

MARGARET D’COSTA,

Defendants.

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.

Case 1:11-cv-02235-MSK-CBS Document 3 Filed 09/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
DATED this 1st day of September, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02235-MSK-CBS Document 3 Filed 09/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2