alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 until May 21, 2012 to allow
the parties to conduct plea negotiations and attempt to finalize a plea agreement, and two
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.

IT IS, therefore, on this day of February, 2012,

ORDERED that this action be, and it hereby is, continued for a period from
February 2, 2012 through and including May 21, 2012; and it is further

ORDERED that the period from February 2, 2012 through and including May 21,
2012 shall be excludable in computing time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant’s motions be filed by 3

The government's replies to such motions be filed by

Motions to be heard on = ()

Form and entry
consented to:

” ‘Mala Ahuja Harkér
Assistant U.S. Attorney

{
Patrick McMahon, Esqv
Counsel for defendant Lawrence J. Brown
#### In the Matter of Rodolfo Guerra, Appellant, v Sandra Balistreri, Respondent.

[854 NYS2d 432]

“Modification of an existing custody arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is necessary to ensure the best interests of the child. The court must consider the totality of the circumstances” *(Matter of Strand-O’Shea v O’Shea,*32 AD3d 398 [2006]; *see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 172 [1982]; *Matter of Fallarino v Ayala,*41 AD3d 714, 714-715 [2007]). “Since custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, the findings of the Family Court will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” *(Matter of Conforti v Conforti,*46 AD3d 877, 877 [2007]; *see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d at 173).

In the instant case, the mother and the father both filed petitions in the Family Court, Nassau County, seeking custody of their child. The father withdrew his petition, and on July 31, 2003 the court granted the mother’s petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. On October 23, 2003 the father filed a petition in the Family Court, Queens County, seeking modification of the Nassau County order to award him custody of the child. After a full evidentiary hearing in the Family Court, Queens County, that court denied the father’s petition.

*647The father failed to present evidence of a change in circumstances during the three-month period between the granting of the mother’s custody petition in Nassau County and his petition for modification in Queens County sufficient to warrant a change in custody *(see Matter of Fallarino v*Ayala, 41 AD3d at 715). Moreover, the testimony and recommendations of the forensic examiner and the child’s therapist that a change in custody would be detrimental to the well-being of the child were uncontradicted by the record and properly credited by the Family Court *(see Matter of Muller v Muller,*221 AD2d 635, 636 [1995]). The court’s determination that a change in custody would not be in the child’s best interests was based upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances and had a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d at 171). Fisher, J.P., Miller, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00378-CR

Pablo Garcia

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 4

of Tarrant County (1219701D)

November 7, 2013

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _________________________________

 Justice Lee Gabriel
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

NEWARK

JUDGE: HON. FAITH S. HOCHBERG DATE: October 5, 2010 

COURT REPORTER: JOHN STONE

DEPUTY CLERK: JULIANNE BURO

Titleof Case: WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NEW JERSEY, INC. v. TEAMSTERS EMPLOYERS

LOCAL 945 PENSION FUND, et al. 

Civ.DocketNo. 10-3984(FSH)

 

Appearances: Thomas Bender, Esq. for Plaintiff 

Susan Katz Hoffman, Esq. for Plaintiff 

Matthew Hank, Esq. for Plaintiff

Frank Custode, Esq. for Plaintiff 

Ron Richman, Esq. for Defendants 

John Agnello, Esq. for Defendants 

Sara Solfanelli, Esq. for Defendants 

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Plaintiff’s Application for a Preliminary Injunction 

Ordered Plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction enjoining arbitration of the delinquent

contributions dispute pursuant to the 2009 Resolution is granted. 

Ordered that the withdrawal liabilitydispute will be adjudicated according to the procedures outlined

in the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act. 

Ordered that the preliminary injunction does not bar the parties from proceeding to arbitration on the

delinquent contributions dispute pursuant to the terms of the Trust Agreement or the 2007

Resolution. 

Ordered that as part of the equitable relief provided for by this Court, the parties are directed that any

factual findings made in the delinquent contributions dispute will be considered de novo by the

MPPAA arbitrator and will not have any collateral estoppel effect.

Time Commenced: 10:40a.m. Time adjourned: 11:40a.m.

cc: chambers Julianne Buro 

 Deputy Clerk

Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS Document 36 Filed 10/05/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 548
|   | 1. | I      am the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Chanticleer      Holdings, Inc. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Attached      to this certification is Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,      2008, a periodic report (the “periodic report”) filed by the issuer with      the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), which      contains financial statements. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3 | I      hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  that: |
|--------|---|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | The      periodic report containing the financial statements fully complies with      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act;      and |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | The      information in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer      for the periods presented. |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| March      3, 2009 | /s/ Michael D. Pruitt                   |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|               | Michael      D. Pruitt                  |
|               | President,      Chief Executive Officer |
|               | and      Chief Financial Officer        |

----
#### George N. Aronis, Respondent, v TLC Vision Centers, Inc., et al., Defendants, and TLC Vision Corporation et al., Appellants.

[853 NYS2d 621]

*577The Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the respective motions of the defendant Eric Donnenfeld and the defendants TLC Vision Corporation, Laser Vision Centers, Inc., TLC The Laser Center (Northeast), Inc., TLC Laser Eye Centers (Garden City), and Lori Landrio (hereinafter collectively the defendants) which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the plaintiffs third cause of action to recover punitive damages insofar as asserted against each of them. “New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages” *(Randi A. J. v Long Is. Surgi-Ctr.,*46 AD3d 74, 80 [2007]; *see Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S.,*83 NY2d 603, 616 [1994]; *Grazioli v Encompass Ins. Co.,*40 AD3d 696, 698 [2007]; *Yong Wen Mo v Gee Ming Chan,*17 AD3d 356, 359 [2005]; *Schwegel v Chiaramonte,*4 AD3d 519, 521 [2004]). Moreover, “punitive damages are available for the purpose of vindicating a public right only where the actions of the alleged tort-feasor constitute gross recklessness or intentional, wanton or malicious conduct aimed at the pubic generally or are activated by evil or reprehensible motives” *(Gravitt v Newman,*114 AD2d 1000, 1002 [1985]; *see Nooger v Jay-Dee Fast Delivery,*251 AD2d 307 [1998]; *Spinosa v Weinstein,*168 AD2d 32, 42-43 [1991]). Here, the plaintiffs allegations amount to nothing more than allegations of mere negligence *(see Sanders v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr.,*203 AD2d 550 [1994]; *Zabas v Kard,*194 AD2d *578784 [1993]; *Spinosa v Weinstein,*168 AD2d at 43; *Gravitt v Newman,*114 AD2d 1000 [1985]) and do not rise to the level of moral culpability necessary to support a claim for punitive damages *(see Anderson v Elliott,*24 AD3d 400 [2005]; *Nooger v Jay-Dee Fast Delivery,*251 AD2d 307 [1998]; *Zabas v Kard,*194 AD2d 784 [1993]).

The Supreme Court also should have granted those branches of the defendants’ respective motions which were to strike the prejudicial and inflammatory language in the plaintiffs bills of particulars, as that language was directed to his claim for punitive damages *(see*CPLR 3024 [b]). Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JANEWAY TOWING,

Petitioner

v.

CREDIT CONNECTION AUTO SALES,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 142 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of August, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 106 Filed 03/12/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 3570
Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 106 Filed 03/12/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 3571
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 125 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 125

To amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 to repeal the forfeiture rule for 
   peanuts under the nonrecourse marketing assistance loan program, 
prohibit the use of Federal funds for certain activities, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 15, 2019

  Ms. Cortez Masto (for herself and Mr. Lee) introduced the following 
      bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 to repeal the forfeiture rule for 
   peanuts under the nonrecourse marketing assistance loan program, 
prohibit the use of Federal funds for certain activities, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Removing Excessive Dollars to Uproot 
and Cut Expensive Government Waste Act'' or the ``REDUCE Government 
Waste Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SPECIAL RULE FOR PEANUTS.

    Section 1201 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9031) is 
amended by striking subsection (e).

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF BEERBOTS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be 
used for the development of a beerbot or other robot bartender.

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF INSECT-BASED 
              FOODS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be 
used for the development of insect-based foods for human consumption, 
including cricket farming and taste-testing of insect-based foods.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

JERMAINE MOYE, 

Defendant Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

Plaintiff Below, 

Appellee. 

§ 

§ No. 498, 2014 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ Court Below—Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware, 

§ in and for New Castle County 

§ Cr. ID 1105024046 

§ 

§ 

 Submitted: September 15, 2014 

 Decided: September 30, 2014 

O R D E R

This 30th day of September 2014, it appears to the Court that, on September 

10, 2014, the Clerk issued a notice to appellant to show cause why this appeal 

should not be dismissed because of the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear an 

interlocutory appeal in a criminal matter. The appellant has failed to respond to the 

notice to show cause within the required ten-day period; therefore, dismissal of this 

action is deemed to be unopposed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme 

Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely

Justice
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34040-34041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16626]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,232]


Sierra Pine Ltd., Medite Division, Including On-Site Workers 
Leased From Personnel Source, Medford, OR; Amended Certification 
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 
Trade Adjustment Assistance on October 24, 2008, applicable to all 
workers of Sierra Pine Ltd., Medite Division, Medford, Oregon. The 
notice was published in the Federal Register on November 10, 2008 (73 
FR 66676).
    At the request of a State agency representative, the Department 
reviewed the certification for workers of the

[[Page 34041]]

subject firm. The workers produce medium density fiberboard.
    New information submitted to the Department shows that the worker 
group includes on-site workers leased from Personnel Source.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Sierra Pine Ltd., Medite Division, Medford, Oregon, who were 
adversely affected by increased imports.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to 
include on-site workers leased from Personnel Source.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-65,232 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Sierra Pine Ltd., Medite Division, Medford, 
Oregon, including on-site leased workers from Personnel Source, who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
October 15, 2007 through October 24, 2010, are eligible to apply for 
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 and 
are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment 
assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of June 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E9-16626 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10627

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Ryder Shane Altman, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:19-CR-72-1

Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Ryder Shane Altman pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to 

distribution of child pornography and was sentenced to 192 months of 

imprisonment, to be served consecutively to Altman’s anticipated probation 

revocation for a prior state court pornography conviction. He argues on 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 9, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10627 Document: 00515892897 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2021
No. 20-10627

2

appeal that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object 

to the presentence report’s reference to application note 4(C) to U.S.S.G. 

§ 5G1.3. He further contends that the district court abused its discretion in 

not granting his motion to continue his sentencing hearing so that he could 

obtain a mitigation expert. 

The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair 

evaluation of Altman’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we 

therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. 

See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Altman’s appeal 

waiver, which the Government invokes, bars his challenge to the denial of his 

motion for a continuance. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 231 (5th 

Cir. 2006); United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-10627 Document: 00515892897 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2021
ORDER

ERIC HOLDER, JR., et al.,

Respondents, : CLOSED

For the reasons pressed in Opinion filed herewith,

IT IS on this } day of

, 2011,

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively

terminate this action; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall supply to

Petitioner a blank form Application, for use by a prisoner, to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis in a Habeas Case; and it is further

ORDERED that if Petitioner wishes to reopen this action, he

shall so notify the Court, in writing addressed to the Clerk of

the Court, at

Martin Luther King Building and U.S. Courthouse,

50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey, 07101,

within. 30 days after the date of entry of this Order;

Pe titioner’s writing shall include e.it.her (1) a complete i•n .foc..ma

llperiA application, including an affidavit of indigence and

six-month institutional account statement, certified by the

appropriate official of each institution at which Petitioner is
N) U) 

N) N) U) 

U) N) Cl 

N) U) 

U) N) 

Ft N) Cl Ft 

N) U) N) 

th C N) 

N) Ft C’) U) 

Cl C’) 

CT N) C’) N) 

U) C U) 

ti 

U) Ft Ft 

U) U) Cl Cl 

Q Ft U) U) 

U) Ft Ft U) 

N) U) 

U) U) Ft 

U) Cl 

U) U) 

C U) 

Cl () 

Cl) N) 

U) U) 

Cl U) 

U) 

U) N) 

N) N) 0 

N) N) 

U) 

U) Ft 

U) Cl 

U) U) 

U) 

CC!) C) 

U)Ft U) 0 

N)U) C) 

FtU) C) U) 

(UN) C) Ft 

ClU) N) 

(/) 

U) Cl 

FtN) 0 U) 

U). N) N) 

Ft N) 

(DC) Ft 

U)Cl Cl C) 

U) N) N) 

CU) Cl) 0 

N)N) U) U)U) 0 U) 

FtU) U) 

U) Cl Ft 

U) Cl 

C) U) U) 

Ft 

C) C) 

Cl C’) 0 

U) 0 U) 

Cl U) U) 

N) Ft 

U)

- 

U)
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 Quarterly Report of Piedmont Mining Company, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




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 operation of the Company.





Date:  May
      14, 2009
              By:
              /s/
      Robert M. Shields, Jr.Name:  Robert
      M. Shields, Jr.Title:  Chief
      Executive Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Piedmont Mining Company, Inc. and will be
retained by Piedmont Mining Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.