alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KOLE AKINOLA,

 Defendants.

Criminal Action No.: 11-310 (JLL)

ORDER

LINARES, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Kole Akinola’s omnibus motion, two 

motions to suppress, and motion for bail. For the reasons placed on the record on November 17, 

2011,

IT IS on this 28th day of November, 2011

ORDERED that the Defendant is granted two weeks from the date of entry of this Order 

to submit a brief in support of his second motion to suppress; and it is further

ORDERED that the government is granted ten (10) days from the submission date of the 

Defendant’s brief to submit an opposition to Defendant’s second motion to suppress; and it is 

further

ORDERED that this Court will hold an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s first and 

second motions to suppress on Friday, January 20, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s request for a list of the names of all Government 

informants is denied as moot as the Government has indicated that none exist; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s request for Brady and Giglio materials is denied as moot as 

the Government has represented that such material has already been produced. However, the 

Government is reminded of their continuing obligation to turn over these materials as they arise; 

and it is further 

ORDERED that the Government shall provide transcripts of the Grand Jury testimony of 

any witnesses that the Government intends to call at the suppression hearing; and it is further

Case 2:11-cr-00310-JLL Document 34 Filed 11/28/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 208
ORDERED that Defendant’s request pertaining to the Government’s 404(b) evidence is 

granted and the Government is to provide notice to Defendant at least ten (10) days before trial; 

and it is further

ORDERED that the Government shall comply with this Court’s standing order to turn 

over any Jencks material in a timely manner that does not cause delays to trial; and it is further

ORDERED that the Court reserves judgment on Defendant’s Motion for a Bill of 

Particulars; and it is further 

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Bail is denied. 

SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Jose L. Linares 

JOSE L. LINARES

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:11-cr-00310-JLL Document 34 Filed 11/28/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 209
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23-0442

INRE THEMAkRIAGE OF: ABRIELLEELIZABETHHOLMQUIST,

Petitioner and Appellee, 

# FLED MAR -5 2024

BOWEM Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana

ORDER and GIOVANNI MARINO,

Respondent andAppellant.
Self-represented Appellant Giovanni Marino has filed an "Emergency Motion to Stay Orders pending Supreme Court Appeal[.]" He states that he requests a stay of the underlying "Petitioner's proposed parenting plan and return[ing] the minor child, AEBH, toRespondentpending Supreme CourtAppeal." Marinoincludesseveral attachmentswith this Motion. This Court notes that no response has been filed. This Court received the Flathead County District Court record on September 19, 2023, and Marino rpfiled his opening brief, after correcting certain deficiencies on December 7, 2023. The case was sent to the Court on February 2, 2023, because no response briefwas filed. Sincethen, self-representedAbrielleElizabethHolmquist moved the Court for additional time to file her brief, which this Court granteduntil March 25, 2024. Upon review of the register of actions and order on appeal, we conclude that Marino's request for stay is improper anduntimely. WhileMarino sought a motion to stay Orders in the District Court on August 14, 2023, the court did not have the opportunity to entertainhismotionbecauseMarino filedhisNotice ofAppeal thenext day, onAugust 15, 2023. M. R.App.P. 22(1)(a) and 22(2). Additionally on that day as well, the court held a status and scheduling conference for a non-jury trial in February and to set a contested 03/05/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0442hearing on the interim parenting plan. In lieu of issuing an order on the status and

scheduling conference, the court stated in its Order that it would take no further action because of the pending appeal and recommended that both parties contact the Montana Family Transition Project for access to possible resources. Marino then attempted to seek relief in the District Court the next month. On September 7, 2023, the District Court denied Marino's Emergency Motion for Contempt ofCourt and Warrant, explaining thatthe only parentingplan is theAugust 9, 2023 intert im parenting iJlan and that the Kalispell Municipal Court issued a protection order for Holmquist and against Marino, valid until July 10, 2024. We further conclude that this appeal is improperly before this Court. The District Court has not concluded all matters in this proceeding. M. R. App. P. 4(5)(a)(i). Marino does not have a finaljudgment to appeal. M. R. App. P. 4(1)(a). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Marino's Emergency Motion to Stay Orders pending Supreme Court Appeal is DENIED; 2. this appeal isDISMISSED withoutprejudice. Marino may seek an appeal when he has a finaljudgment from the District Court; and 3. the Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to CLOSE this appeal as of this Order's date. The Clerk also is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to all parties at their last known address. DATED this,S day ofMarch, 2024. 

# c CA



# 7e tt ee fCcvW23

)
#### VIGNOVICH v. GREAT LAKES S. S. CO., Inc.

No. 1124.

District Court, W. D. New York.

Nov. 20, 1942.

Carnes & Hetzelt, of Buffalo, N. Y., for plaintiff.

Duncan, Leckie, McCreary, Schlitz & Hinslea, of Cleveland, Ohio (Stanley & Otten, of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for defendant.

KNIGHT, District Judge.

This is a motion by the defendant to strike the “Third” paragraph of the complaint on the ground that the averment is not “simple, concise, and direct.” Rule 8 (e) (1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. It is clear that the aforesaid paragraph does not meet the requirements of this rule. To demonstrate this the numerous repetitious allegations as to negligence are herein set forth. They are as follows:

(1) “in negligently failing to provide safe place and safe way to perform his work.”

(2) “in permitting and allowing lumps of coal to remain upon the beam in the coal bunker.”

(3) “in failing to remove the same, after defendant was apprised of said condition and knew it and knew that the employees, particularly the plaintiff, would have occasion to work thereat and that he might be caused to sustain injury when said lump of coal would fall.”

(4) “in failing to warn or apprise said plaintiff.”

(5) “in negligently failing to inspect, prevent and clean said accumulation of lumps after defendant was apprised of said condition and had ordered one of its servants to clean the same; that said employee only cleaned the shelves permitting lumps to accumulate on the beam.”

(6) “in negligently failing to exercise ordinary care for plaintiffs life and limb while he was employed on the vessel.”

(7) “in negligently knowing, ordering, permitting and allowing plaintiff to work thereat after defendant was apprised of said condition.”

(8) “defendant failed and neglected to clean said lump of coal off said beam.”

(9) “in negligently and carelessly maintaining and providing a defectively constructed coal bunker; negligently and care*70lessly failing and neglecting to provide adequate, proper, and reasonably safe appliances in said coal bunker.”

(10) “in negligently permitting, ordering, and allowing plaintiff to work thereat as described aforesaid, when defendant knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known of the perilous position of the plaintiff, after having been apprised of said coal bunker; * * * ”.

(11) “in negligently and carelessly failing and neglecting to properly supervise or regulate or direct the work of cleaning the shelves and beams, and employing and delegating to plaintiff’s immediate superiors, supervision of the coal bunker, when they were incompetent to perform and supervise such work.”

As pointed out by the defendant, the averment of this paragraph is also violative of Rule 8 (a) (2).

The motion to dismiss is granted, and the plaintiff is. allowed twenty days in which to amend, if so advised.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34334-34335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16718]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER95-1528-021; ER05-89-013; ER05-453-005; ER07-650-003; 
ER96-1088-048; ER03-674-014; ER01-2659-015]


Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Upper Peninsula Power 
Company, Wisconsin River Power Company, Integrys Energy Services, Inc., 
WPS Power Development, LLC, Quest Energy, LLC, and Combined Locks 
Energy Center, LLC; Notice of Filing

July 8, 2009.
    Take notice that on June 18, 2009, Wisconsin Public Service 
Corporation, Upper Peninsula Power Company, Wisconsin River Power 
Company, Integrys Energy Services, Inc., WPS Power Development, LLC, 
Quest Energy, LLC, and Combined Locks Energy Center, LLC submit their 
triennial power market update for renewal of their market-based rate 
authority in the Central Region.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the

[[Page 34335]]

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bff9faedfcf0d1d3d6d1daeccacfcfd0cdcbffd9dacddc91d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cb8d8e998884a5a7a2a5ae98bebbbba4b9bf8badaeb9a8e5aca4bd">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 17, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-16718 Filed 7-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5037 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5037

              For the relief of Rogelio Gallegos-Herrera.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 8, 2004

    Mr. Wu introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              For the relief of Rogelio Gallegos-Herrera.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF, OR DENIAL OF ADMISSION TO, 
              ROGELIO GALLEGOS-HERRERA.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 212(a) and 237(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, Rogelio Gallegos-Herrera may not be 
removed from the United States, denied admission to the United States, 
or considered ineligible for lawful permanent residence in the United 
States, by reason of any ground for removal or denial of admission that 
is reflected in the records of the Department of Homeland Security or 
the Visa Office of the Department of State, on the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (b) Rescission of Outstanding Order of Removal.--The Secretary of 
Homeland Security shall rescind any outstanding order of removal or 
deportation, or any finding of inadmissibility or deportability, that 
has been entered against Rogelio Gallegos-Herrera by reason of any 
ground described in subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Annual Report of China Pharma  Holdings,  Inc. a Delaware
corporation  (the  "Company") on Form  10-KSB/A for the period  ending  December
31,2005,  as filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof(the  "Report"),  Zhilin  LI,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the  Company,
certifies  to the best of her  knowledge,  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; and

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

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


/s/ Zhilin LI
-----------------------
Zhilin LI
Chief Executive Officer
November 8, 2006
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CYBRA Corporation. (the
“Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harold Brand,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 16,
2009                                                    /s/Harold
Brand


Harold Brand


Chief Executive Officer
Case 2:11-cr-00160-JLL Document 29 Filed 12/01/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 93
**Exhibit      32.1**

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

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF 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, as amended;                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/ Darryl              Franklin |
|   | Darryl                Franklin, (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial                Officer) |
|   |                                                                                                         |
|   |                                                                                                         |
|   | Dated: May              31, 2007                                                                             |

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. “Crim, No. 11-341 (SDW)
LAWRENCE J. BROWN {CONTINUANCE ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on the joint application of Paul J. Fishman, United
States Attorney for the District of New Jersey (by Mala Ahuja Harker, Assistant U.S. Attorney),
and defendant Lawrence J. Brown (by Patrick McMahon, Esq.) for an order granting a continuance
of the proceedings in the above-captioned matter for a period of time from August 6, 2012 to
September 30, 2012 to allow the parties to finalize a plea agreement and have that plea entered,
and four continuances having previously been granted by the Court pursuant to Title 18, United
States Code, Section 3161(h)(7)(A), so that the parties could attempt to resolve the matter and
thereby avoid a possible trial, and the defendant being aware that he has the right to have the matter
tried within seventy days of the date of his arraignment pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,
Section 3161(b), and the defendant having consented to the continuance and waived such right,
and for good cause shown,

It IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should be continued for the
following reasons:

(1) Plea negotiations are currently in progress, and both the United States and

the defendant desire additional time to negotiate a plea agreement, which would render a trial of

this matter unnecessary;


(2) Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h)(7), the ends of justice
served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a
speedy trial. ph
IT IS, therefore, on this {e day of August, 2012,
ORDERED that this action be, and it hereby is, continued for a period from August
6, 2012 to September 30, 2012; and it is further

ORDERED that the period from August 6, 2012 through and including September

30, 2012 shall be excludable in computing time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

Form and entry
consented to:

Zak, fa’
Mala Abuja Harker
Assistant U.S, Attorne’

SEAN

Patrick McMahon, Esq. ~
Counsel for defendant Lawrence J. Brown
Exhibit 32.1

                            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  Annual  Report  of TS  Electronics,  Inc.  a  Delaware
corporation  (the  "Company")  on Form  10-KSB  for the period  ending  December
31,2005,  as filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof(the  "Report"),  Zhilin  LI,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the  Company,
certifies  to the best of his  knowledge,  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; and

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

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


/s/ Zhilin LI
-----------------------
Zhilin LI
Chief Executive Officer
March 27, 2006
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 16 - 00145 - CV

CHRISTOPHER J. MCLUC AS APPELLANT
V. RAUL CASTILLO AND YO LANDA CASTILLO APPELLEES

------------ FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2015

- 005026

- 3

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

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

------------ On July 6, 2016, we notified A ppellant that the trial court clerk responsible for preparin g the record in this appeal informed the court that payment arrangements had not been made to pay for the clerk’s record as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(2). See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a)(2).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

We stated that we would dismiss the appe al for want o f prosecution unless
A ppellant made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record and provided this court with proof of payment by July 18, 2016

. The deadline expired without Appellant making payment arrangements for the clerk’s record. Appelle es thereafter filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. Five days later , we received “Appellant’s Unopposed First Motion For Extension Of Time To Pay For The Clerk’s Record And Reporter’s Record And Provide Proof Of Payments And Desi gnations,” contending that the reason he was unable to pay for the record was due to his counsel’s illness

. 2 Appellees filed a response opposing Appellant’s motion for extension of time to pay for the clerk’s record and attached an enforcement order showi ng that Appellant’s counsel had appeared in court with Appellant on the July 18 deadline ; Appellees
argue that Appellant’s counsel’s health had nothing to do with Appellant missing
the court

- imposed July 18, 2016 deadline for paying for the clerk’s record. After reviewing Appellant’s motion for extension and Appellees’ response, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Accordingly, we deny “Appellant’s Unopposed First Motion For Extension Of Time To Pay F or The Clerk’s Record And Reporter’s Record And Provide Proof Of Payments And Designations , ” we grant “Appellees Raul Castillo

2 The motion alleges that Appellant’s counsel Gary Tucker had an illness that interfered with his ability to perform his responsibilities in a timely manner. The motion was not filed by Mr. Tucker.3

and Yolanda Castillo’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution,” and

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b) , 42.3(b). Appellant shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue. PER CURIAM
PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DELIVERED: July 28, 2016