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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02434-WYD-MEH

CARL GENBERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVEN S. PORTER, an individual,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on August 28, 2014.

The Motion for Substitution as Co-Counsel of Record filed by Holly Sterrett [filed August

27, 2014; docket #153] is granted in part and denied as moot in part.

First, there is no indication in the record that Holly Sterrett entered an appearance in this

case; accordingly, her request to withdraw is moot and the Court will deny the motion on that basis.

Second, through the motion, Michelle Albert seeks to enter her appearance in the case. The

Court grants the motion in this respect, and directs the Clerk of the Court to enter the appearance

of Michelle K. Albert as counsel for Defendant Steven Porter.

Case 1:11-cv-02434-WYD-MEH Document 155 Filed 08/28/14 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: 10Federal Reserve Bank of: Kansas CityFilings received during the week ending November 21, 2020FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodAMERISTATE BANK                                                                                                         Premises
213 La. 947

#### STATE v. RACHAL.

No. 38898.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 26, 1948.

Rehearing Denied June 1, 1948.

S. R. Thomas, of Natchitoches, for relator.

Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culli-gan, Asst. Atty. Gen. and H. L. Hughes, Dist. Atty., of Natchitoches, for respondent.

FOURNET, Justice.

The relator, Leonard Rachal, having pleaded guilty on four charges (one with possession of and three with selling intoxicating liquors in a parish where possession and sale of such liquors is prohibited), in violation of Act No. 15 of 1934, as amended, was sentenced in each case to serve six months and to pay a fine of $500 (the sentences to run concurrently), in default of paying the fine, to serve an additional six months. He paid the fine and is now seeking to be relieved of the jail sentence, contending that the statute under which he was charged does not authorize the imposition of both a jail sentence and fine, citing as authority the case of State v. Monsour, 205 La. 272, 17 So.2d 307.

The trial judge in the return to the rule issued by this court informs us that in imposing these sentences he took into consideration the fact that the accused had been previously convicted on a similar charge, his conviction being later affirmed by this court in the case of State v. Rachal, 211 La. 227, 29 So.2d 774, and that the accused and his counsel were so advised in open court before the sentence was imposed.

It is obvious, therefore, that the holding in the Monsour case has no application here for the act under which the accused was prosecuted specifically provides that “For a second or subsequent offense, the said penalties may be doubled, the imposition of *fine and imprisonment*and the doubling of said penalties to be within the discretion of the Court.” Section 13. (Italics ours.)

For the reasons assigned the writ issued herein is recalled and the relief sought is denied.

O’NIELL, C. J.,

dissents on the ground

that there was no proof made in this case of the former conviction in the district court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Donald Spinner

v. Civil No. 08-cv-067-JL

Warden, New Hampshire State Prison, et al.

O R D E R

Donald Spinner has filed a motion to clarify in this matter

(document no. 10). On August 15, 2008, Magistrate Judge Arenas

issued an Order (document no. 9) directing Spinner to amend his

habeas petition to demonstrate exhaustion of claim #3, as

enumerated in Magistrate Judge Arenas’ March 24, 2008 Order

(document no. 6) directing Spinner to amend his petition to

demonstrate exhaustion of all of his claims. 

That designation of the claim to be amended was incorrect. 

In fact, Spinner has demonstrated exhaustion of claim #3. He has

not demonstrated exhaustion of claim #4, as enumerated in the

March 24 Order, alleging that:

Spinner’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were 

violated when the trial court precluded Spinner from 

introducing testimonial evidence at the hearing on the 

new trial motion that Spinner’s trial judge had fallen 

asleep during proceedings in other cases.

Case 1:08-cv-00067-JL Document 11 Filed 08/25/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The motion to clarify is granted. Spinner is directed to

amend his petition, in the manner discussed in Magistrate Judge

Arenas’ August 15 Order, to demonstrate exhaustion of claim #4

regarding testimonial evidence at the hearing on the new trial

motion.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 25, 2008

cc: Donald Spinner, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00067-JL Document 11 Filed 08/25/08 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02402-LTB-KMT

THOMAS C. PICKERING,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO,

ERIC W. BLACKHURST, in his official capacity as Trustee of the Town of Estes Park,

MARK ELROD, in his official capacity as Trustee of the Town of Estes Park,

JOHN ERICSON, in his official capacity as Trustee of the Town of Estes Park,

WENDY KOENIG, in her official capacity as Trustee of the Town of Estes Park,

JERRY MILLER, in his official capacity as Trustee of the Town of Estes Park,

CHUCK LEVINE, in his official capacity as Mayor Pro Tem of the Town of Estes Park,

WILLIAM C. PIINKHAM, in his official capacity as Mayor of the Town of Estes Park; and

JACQUIE HALBURNT, in her official capacity as the Town Administrator of the Town of

Estes Park, Colorado,

Defendants.

________________________________________________________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

________________________________________________________________________

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the Stipulation for Dismissal With

Prejudice (Doc 13 - filed May 11, 2012), and the Court being fully advised in the premises,

it is therefore

ORDERED that this matter shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each party to

pay their own fees and costs. 

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

Lewis T. Babcock, Judge

DATED: May 14, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02402-LTB-KMT Document 14 Filed 05/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 31.1

                              FORM OF CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 AND 15d-14
              UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Linda Contreras, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of National  Healthcare
Technology, Inc.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not contain any untrue
statement of material  fact or omit to state a material  fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. As the registrant's  certifying officer I am responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and I have:

      (a)  designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to ensure that
      material   information   relating  to  the   registrant,   including   its
      consolidated  subsidiaries,  is made  known to us by others  within  those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
      being prepared; and

      (b) evaluated the  effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure  controls
      and procedures and presented my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure  controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by
      the report; and

      (c)  disclosed  in this  report any changes in the  registrant's  internal
      control over  financial  reporting that occurred  during the  registrant's
      most recent  fiscal  quarter (the small  business  issuer's  fourth fiscal
      quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,  or
      is  reasonably  likely to materially  affect,  the  registrant's  internal
      control over financial reporting;

5. As the  registrant's  certifying  officer I have disclosed,  based on my most
recent  evaluation,  to the registrant's  auditors and the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      (a) all material  weaknesses,  as well as significant  deficiencies in the
      design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's  ability to record,
      process, summarize, and report financial information, have been disclosed;
      and

      (b) any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
      employees  who  have  a  significant  role  in the  registrant's  internal
      controls.

Date:   August 17, 2007

/s/ Linda Contreras
----------------------------------
Name: Linda Contreras
Title: Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 09-cr-04-01-PB

Carmen Morales

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for March 3, 2009, citing the need for additional

time for defendant to complete an in-patient treatment program

and to subsequently 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 March 3, 2009 to June 2, 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 defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:09-cr-00004-PB Document 10 Filed 02/23/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The February 25, 2009 final pretrial conference is continued

to May 21, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

February 23, 2009

cc: Charles J. Keefe, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:09-cr-00004-PB Document 10 Filed 02/23/09 Page 2 of 2
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0000589 22-JUN-2015 12:10 PM
(August 22, 1990)

#### In the Matter of John Klotz, Appellant, v Kathleen M. Wagner et al., Constituting the Board of Elections in the City of New York, et al., Respondents. (And Ten Other Appeals.)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fred W. Eggert, J.), *816entered on August 17, 1990, unanimously affirmed, for the reasons stated by Eggert, J., without costs and without disbursements. The appeal taken in *Randolph v Llanos*has been withdrawn pursuant to letter filed. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Kassal, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, ex rel. Andrew Gasper, Appellant, v James Sullivan, as Superintendent of Sing Sing Correctional Facility, Respondent.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), dated January 23, 1989, which dismissed the proceeding. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated February 23, 1989, as, upon granting reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 23, 1989, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated February 23, 1989, made upon reargument *(see, Gold v Town of N. Hempstead,*142 AD2d 550); and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated February 23, 1989, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner’s claim that he was wrongfully deprived of his right to appear and testify before the Grand Jury *(see,*CPL 190.50 [5]) and his related claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel during the time the case was presented to the Grand Jury may be raised on a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction, or by collateral motion before the court which rendered the judgment of conviction *(cf., People v Jackson,*119 AD2d 587; *see also, People v Brown,*45 NY2d 852; CPL 440.10 [1]). Therefore, the Supreme Court in Westchester County, where the petitioner is presently incarcerated, properly dismissed this proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus *(cf., People ex rel. Keitt v McMann,*18 NY2d 257; *see, People ex rel. Nelson v Scully,*119 AD2d 709). Brown, J. P., Hooper, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
December 1, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., 

in Courtroom A-502, 

Fifth Floor, 

Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, 

901 19th Street,

Denver, Colorado 80294

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02479-MSK-MJW

MELVIN J. SCOTT,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

EG&G/LEAR SIEGLER SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant(s).

ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE 

FOR 

PRO SE PLAINTIFF(S)

The above-captioned case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J.

Watanabe pursuant to the Order of Reference to United States Magistrate Judge,

entered by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on October 4, 2011.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Status Conference shall be held on:

Absent exceptional circumstances, no request for rescheduling any

appearance in this court will be entertained unless a written request is made FIVE

(5) business days in advance of the date of appearance.

THE PLAINTIFF(S) SHALL NOTIFY ALL PARTIES WHO HAVE NOT ENTERED

AN APPEARANCE OF THE DATE AND TIME FOR THE STATUS CONFERENCE.

FURTHER, it is ORDERED that plaintiff(s) shall forthwith serve each defendant

with service of process consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

Case 1:11-cv-02479-MSK-MJW Document 8 Filed 10/25/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
FURTHER, it is ORDERED that at the Status Conference the pro se Plaintiff(s)

shall:

1. Provide written proof of service of process on ALL defendants or show cause

why this case should not be dismissed for lack of service of process and/or failure to

prosecute;

2. Inform this court on whether you intend to retain legal counsel. If you intend

to retain legal counsel, then you shall be prepared to inform this court, on the record, of

what efforts you have made to retain legal counsel; and, 

3. Become familiar with the following Rules: (a) the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, (b) the United States District Court for the District of Colorado Local Rules of

Practice, and (c) the Federal Rules of Evidence. These sets of rules shall apply in this

case.

Please remember that everyone seeking entry into the Alfred A. Arraj United

States Courthouse will be required to show valid photo identification. See

D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.2B. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in denial of

entry into the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse.

Done and signed this 25th day of October, 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael J. Watanabe

MICHAEL J. WATANABE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02479-MSK-MJW Document 8 Filed 10/25/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
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 State

          - [Public Notice 6381] 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Beadwork Storytellers, A Visual Language,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Cherokee Heritage Center, Tahlequah, OK, from on or about October 11, 2008, until on or about April 19, 2009, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (                        *telephone:*                         202/453-8048). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.                     

Dated: September 24, 2008. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs,  Department of State.

 [FR Doc. E8-23147 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
# C o urt o f A ppe a ls

o f th e S ta te o f G e o rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 5 D0 02 4

. DANNY AMEN VALENTI NE SHABAZ Z v
. THE I R BY REI T d/ b/ a THE I RBY et a l

.

On J u ly 1 , 2024, Danny A men V alentine Shabaz z f iled a “ N otic e o f A p p eal”

in the Su p reme Co u rt, whic h w as d o c k eted as an ap p lic atio n fo r d isc retio nary ap p eal.

The filing c o ntained no ord er, b u t the Su p reme Co u rt o btained a M ay 23, 2024 o rd er
f r o m the trial c o u r t bef

o re transf erring t he ap p lic atio n to this Co u rt. See C a s e N o

. S24D 1236 , transf

erred J u ly 23, 2024. W e, ho wev er, lac k j urisd ic tio n. Generally, a no tic e o f ap peal mu st b e f iled w ithin 30 d ays o f entry of the o rd er

so u ght to be ap p ealed

. See OCGA § 5

- 6

- 38 (a). Based o n the M ay 23 o rd er, ho w ev er,
Shabaz z is attemp tin g t o ap p eal an o rd er issu e d in a d isp o ssesso ry c ase. 1 A nd u nd er
OCGA § 44- 7 -56 , ap p eals in d isp o ssesso ry ac tio ns mu st be f iled within sev en d ays o f

the d ate the j u d gment was e ntered

. See Ra y M. W ri ght, In c. v

. Jo n es , 239 Ga. A p p

. 5 21 , 522- 523 (521 SE2d 456 ) (1 9 9 9 )

. The p ro p er and timely f iling o f a no tic e o f

ap p eal is

an abso lu te requ irement to c o nf er j urisd ic tio n on t his Co u rt. I d

. at 523. Here, Shabaz z f iled his ap p lic a tio n 39 d ays af ter the trial c o u rt’ s o rd er. A c c o r d i n g l y, the filing w as

u ntimely, and this ap p eal is hereby D I SM I SSED f o r lac k o f j u risd ic tio n.

1 I n the ord er, the trial co u rt no ted t hat a w rit o f p ossessio n had been granted and a p rio r ap p eal d ismissed

. Shabaz z ap p a rently so u ght to re- o p en the d isp ossesso ry matter, bu t the trial c ou r t d enied Shabaz z ’ s requ est. August 21, 2024C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia
C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t ify t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t

r u e e x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

. W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. 08/21/2024
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1157 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1157

  To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to eliminate the consumptive demand 
 exception relating to the importation of goods made with forced labor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 19, 2007

  Mr. Harkin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to eliminate the consumptive demand 
 exception relating to the importation of goods made with forced labor.

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

SECTION 1. GOODS MADE WITH FORCED OR INDENTURED LABOR.

    (a) In General.--The second sentence of section 307 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307) is amended by striking ``; but in no 
case'' and all that follows to the end period.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the date that is 15 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00220-CR

DONNIE JACKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 196th District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. 28,828

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Donnie Jackson, appellant, has filed with this Court a motion to dismiss his appeal. The 

motion was signed by both Jackson and his counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 42.2(a), we 

grant the motion. See id.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: October 16, 2013

Date Decided: October 17, 2013

Do Not Publish