alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
»< New Civil Liberties Alliance
May 20, 2023

The Honorable Kimberly A. Moore

Chief Circuit Judge

US. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place, N.W.

Washington, DC 20439

VIA EMAIL

Rez bn re Complaint No. 23-90015 (Complaint Against Circuit Judge Pantine Newman)

Dear Chief Judge Moore:

I am in receipt of the special committee’s orders of May 16, 2023. One of the orders once
again requested that Judge Newman agree to medical evaluations and provide medical records for the
committee’s review. The order set a deadline of May 23, 2023 at 9:00am to respond to the request.
This letter is to request an extension of time until June 8, 2023.

The reasons for the request are as follows. On May 16th, 2023, I travelled out of the country
to Israel to attend a traditional Jewish baby-naming ceremony for my newborn niece. (Indeed, I
received the special committee’s orders while already at the airport). I am not scheduled to return to
Washington, D.C. until June 1, 2023. While in Israel, I am scheduled to attend a variety of family
functions, in addition to attempting to spend the time with my new niece. Accordingly, my ability to
dedicate significant amount of time to this or other legal matters will be quite limited. Furthermore,
given the time difference between Israel and Washington, D.C., my ability to effectively communicate
with my client is also impeded. Finally, I have an immovable deadline of May 31, 2023 to submit
gtades for over 100 students who were enrolled in my Spring 2023 courses at the University of
Baltimore.

Since the initial order provided Judge Newman one week to respond to the requests, I am
similarly asking for one week from the time of my return to provide an appropriate response. In light
of the above, I respectfully request the aforementioned extension of time.

Sincerely,

/s/ Gregory Dolin, M.D.

Senior Litigation Counsel
NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE

225 19% Street NW Suite 450, Washington DC 20036] (202) 869-5210 www.NCLAlegal.org
§ 228.21 Assistant Administrator's decision. ( a ) Upon receipt of the recommended decision and transcript and after the 20-day period for receiving written comments on the recommended decision has passed, the Assistant Administrator shall make a final decision on the proposed regulations and waiver, where applicable. The Assistant Administrator's decision may affirm, modify, or set aside, in whole or in part, the recommended findings, conclusions and decision of the presiding officer. The Assistant Administrator may also remand the hearing record to the presiding officer for a fuller development of the record.
( b ) The Assistant Administrator's decision shall include: ( 1 ) A statement containing a description of the history of the proceeding;
( 2 ) Findings on the issues of fact with the reasons therefor; and
( 3 ) Rulings on issues of law.
( 4 ) The Assistant Administrator's decision shall be published in the Federal Register. If the waiver is approved, the final adopted regulations shall be promulgated with the decision.
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-P235American Policing in 2022What could the field look like 10 years from now...if the profession is willing and able to experiment and innovate. Twenty-seven law enforcement leaders address this and other questions as they share their visions of how this profession will change in the years to come in this new publication from the COPS Office. What becomes clear through their essays is that with the right recruitment tools, training programs, accountability systems, and collaboration between labor and management, agencies will be able to serve both their internal and external communities to the benefit of all. This book is a must read for executives, policy makers, and anyone interested in shaping the future of public safety service delivery in America.By Debra R. Cohen McCullough, Deborah L. SpenceCategories: Foundations of Community Policing • Police OperationsLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-p235Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFBook • Sep 2012Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 05:35 (UTC-5) in 0.20 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
Exhibit 4.1



 




Exhibit 4.1 Page 1








	
YADKIN VALLEY FINANCIAL CORPORATION





	CUSIP 984314 10 4





	FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $.00004 PARl VALUE, OF
YADKIN VALLEY FINANCIAL CORPORATION





	transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney on surrender
of this certificate property endorsed. This certificate shall not be valid until countersigned and
registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar.




	WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the signatures of its duly authorized officers.




	SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY




	PFLESIDEIVTAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER















 

\




Exhibit
4.1 Page 2



     The following abbreviations, when used in the
 inscription on the face of this certificate,
shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or
regulations:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	TEN COM –

	 	as tenants in common
	 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT-
	 	 	 	custodian	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	TEN ENT–

	 	as tenants by the entireties
	 	 	 	(Cust)
	 	(Minor)	 
	JT ENT–	 	as joint tenants with right of
 survivorship and not as tenants
 in common
	 	 	
under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	(State)
	 
	 
	 	 	 	UNIF TRANS MIN ACT-
	 	 	 	custodian
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	(Cust)	 	 	(Minor)

	 

	 	 	 	 	 	
under Uniform Transfer to Minor
	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	Act of	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	(State)	 







Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.




	 	 	 	 	 
	For value received,

	 	 	 	hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto 
	 

	 	 	 	 




 




	 	 	 
	PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER

	 	 
	IDENTIFYING NUMBER
	 	 
	 

	 	 






 




(please print or
typewrite name and address, including postal zip code of assignee)



 



 




 




	 	 	 
	 

	 	 Shares
	 
	 	 





of the Common Stock
represented by the within certificate, and does hereby irrevocably constitute
and appoint




	 	 	 
	 

	 	attorney-in-fact
	 
	 	 





to transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named corporation with full power ot
substitution in the premises.




	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated,

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 





Signature(s) Guaranteed




			
	X		 
	 		
	 		
	X		
	NOTICE:	 	THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS
WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT
ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OF ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.





	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 
	By 	 	 	 
	THE
SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD TRUST BE
GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR
INSTITUTION, (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS
AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNION WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE
GUARANTEE MEDALL ON PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO
S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
§ 26.21 General trespass provision. ( a ) No person shall trespass, including but not limited to entering, occupying, using, or being upon, any national wildlife refuge, except as specifically authorized in this subchapter C or in other applicable Federal regulations.
( b ) No unconfined domestic animals, including but not limited to dogs, hogs, cats, horses, sheep and cattle, shall be permitted to enter upon any national wildlife refuge or to roam at large upon such an area, except as specifically authorized under the provisions of § 26.34, § 27.91 or § 29.2 of this subchapter C.
#### § 100.8 Penalties.

If you are convicted of violating any provision of 50 CFR Part 100 or 36 CFR Part 242, you may be punished by a fine or by imprisonment in accordance with the penalty provisions applicable to the public land where the violation occurred.
§ 270.18 Method of imposing assessments. Assessments will be imposed on sector participants in the receiving sector or the importing sector or both as specified in an approved Council charter. Assessment rates will be based on value that may be expressed in monetary units or units of weight or volume. ( a ) An assessment on sector participants in the receiving sector will be in the form of a percentage of the value or a fixed amount per unit of weight or volume of the fish described in the charter when purchased by such receivers from fish harvesters.
( b ) An assessment on sector participants who own fish processing vessels and harvest the fish described in the charter will be in the form of a percentage of the value or on a fixed amount per unit of weight or volume of the fish described in the charter that is no less than the value if such fish had been purchased by a receiver other than the owner of the harvesting vessel.
( c ) An assessment on sector participants in the importing sector will be in the form of a percentage of the value that an importer pays to a foreign supplier, as determined for the purposes of the customs laws, or a fixed amount per unit of weight or volume, of the fish or fish products described in the charter when entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, in the customs territory of the United States by such sector participants.
( d ) A Council may not impose an assessment on any person that was not eligible to vote in the referendum establishing the Council by reason of failure to meet the requirements specified under unless that person, after the date on which the referendum is held, meets the requirements of section.
( e ) Any person may make voluntary payments or in-kind contributions to a Council for purposes of assisting the Council in carrying out its functions.
Argued and submitted February 25,

convictions affirmed; remanded for entry of corrected judgment March 23,

petition for review denied May 24, 1994 (319 Or 149)

#### STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, *v.*RONALD WAYNE BIVENS, *Appellant.*

(91CR1989FE; CA A75540)

871 P2d 486

David K. Allen, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

Diane S. Lefkow, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.

*84De MUNIZ, J.

*85De MUNIZ, J.

Defendant was convicted of intentional murder with a firearm and burglary in the first degree with a firearm after he killed his estranged wife, ORS 163.115; ORS 164.225; ORS 161.610. Defendant claimed that he acted in self-defense after she stabbed him.

Defendant assigns error to the admission of statements that he made to a detective in a hospital room. He contends that “[t]he type of warnings contemplated *by Miranda v. Arizona,*384 US 436, 86 S Ct 1602, 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966),” were required because the circumstances were “compelling,” and he was in “full custody.” He argues that the statements, which were made without warnings, undermined his claim of self-defense. The error, if any, was harmless. The evidence against defendant was overwhelming. Excluding the statements would not likely have changed the outcome of the trial. *See State v. Hansen,*304 Or 169, 180, 743 P2d 157 (1987).

On the murder conviction, the trial court imposed a life sentence with a 25-year minimum term pursuant to ORS 163.115. Defendant objected, arguing that the sentence should be imposed under the sentencing guidelines. The state concedes that the trial court erred in imposing a life sentence, *State v. Morgan,*316 Or 553, 856 P2d 612 (1993), but contends that only a corrected judgment, not resentencing is required. We agree that defendant need not be present for the entry of an amended judgment. *See State v. Lyons,*124 Or App 598, 612 n 16, 863 P2d 1303 (1993). We remand for entry of a corrected judgment deleting the fife sentence and imposing post-prison supervision for the remainder of defendant’s fife under OAR 253-05-004. The 25-year minimum term is lawful.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for entry of corrected judgment.
United States Bankruptcy Court

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Chapter 13

Case No. 16 B 24874

Judge LaShonda A. Hunt

Joseph Gentile, JR

Karen Gentile

Debtor(s)

IN RE: )

)

)

Notice of Motion

Joseph Gentile, JR

Karen Gentile

4056 W Pontiac Ave

Chicago, IL 60634

Debtor Attorney: David M Siegel

via Clerk's ECF noticing procedures

On January 29, 2018 at 9:00 am, I will appear at the location listed to the 

right, and present this motion.

I certify under penalty of perjury that this office caused a copy of this 

notice to be delivered to the persons named above by U.S. mail or by the 

methods indicated on or before Wednesday, January 3, 2018.

> Dirksen Federal Building

> 219 South Dearborn

> Courtroom 719

> Chicago, IL 60604

/s/ MARILYN O. MARSHALL

MARILYN O. MARSHALL, TRUSTEE

Motion to Dismiss Case for Failure to Make Plan Payments

Comes now Marilyn O. Marshall, Standing Trustee, and requests that this case be dismissed, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1307 [c]

[6], stating:

On August 02, 2016, the debtor filed a petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code which was confirmed by the Court on 

April 10, 2017, for a term of 60 months with payments of $1,550.00.

The status of the debtor's plan is: Current Month Cash Due Cash Received Payment Default 

 17 $24,110.00 $19,568.00 $4,542.00

A summary of the 12 most recent receipt items is set forth below: Report Date: 01/02/2018

Due Each Month: $1,550.00

Next Pymt Due: 02/01/2018

Date Ref Num Amount Date Ref Num Amount

02/21/2017 70283867 $775.00 03/06/2017 70284648 $775.00

03/22/2017 70285402 $775.00 04/10/2017 70286170 $775.00

04/21/2017 70286936 $775.00 05/08/2017 70287685 $775.00

05/22/2017 70288460 $775.00 08/01/2017 4169171000 $1,550.00

09/04/2017 4256800000 $1,550.00 10/04/2017 4339146000 $728.00

11/01/2017 4406375000 $100.00 12/01/2017 4482585000 $830.00

WHEREFORE, the Trustee prays that this case be dismissed, and for any and all other relief this court deems just and proper.

MARILYN O. MARSHALL, TRUSTEE

Office of the Chapter 13 Trustee /s/ MARILYN O. MARSHALL

224 S Michigan Ave

Ste 800

Chicago, IL 60604

(312)431-1300

Case 16-24874 Doc 85 Filed 01/02/18 Entered 01/02/18 17:10:22 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
##### 



EXHIBIT 11

STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

|                                                        |  |                    |            |                    |  |   |            |  
|------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------ | ---------- | ------------------ |  | - | ---------- | -
|                                                        |  | For the            |            | For the           
|                                                        |  | Three Months Ended |            | Three Months Ended
|                                                        |  | June 30,           |            | June 30,          
|                                                        |  | 2003               |            | 2002              
|                                                        |  |                    |            |                   
|Net loss                                                |  | $                  | (27,153    | )                  |  | $ | (49,593    | )
|Actual outstanding common shares at beginning of period |  |                    | 50,004,474 |                    |  |   | 50,004,474 |  
|Weighted basic and diluted shares                       |  |                    | 50,004,474 |                    |  |   | 50,004,474 |  
|Basic and diluted loss per share                        |  | $                  | 0.00       |                    |  | $ | 0.00       |  

|                                                        |  |                  |            |                  |  |   |            |  
|------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------- | ---------- | ---------------- |  | - | ---------- | -
|                                                        |  | For the          |            | For the         
|                                                        |  | Six Months Ended |            | Six Months Ended
|                                                        |  | June 30,         |            | June 30,        
|                                                        |  | 2003             |            | 2002            
|                                                        |  |                  |            |                 
|Net loss                                                |  | $                | (51,713    | )                |  | $ | (90,166    | )
|Actual outstanding common shares at beginning of period |  |                  | 50,004,474 |                  |  |   | 50,004,474 |  
|Weighted basic and diluted shares                       |  |                  | 50,004,474 |                  |  |   | 50,004,474 |  
|Basic and diluted loss per share                        |  | $                | 0.00       |                  |  | $ | 0.00       |  

15
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4811 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4811

  To provide for an additional temporary and permanent district court 
              judgeship for the northern district of Ohio.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 1994

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for an additional temporary and permanent district court 
              judgeship for the northern district of Ohio.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT JUDGESHIP FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.

    The existing district judgeship for the northern district of Ohio 
authorized by section 203(c) of the Federal Judgeship Act of 1990 (28 
U.S.C. 133 note) shall, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, be 
authorized under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, and the 
incumbent in that office shall hold the office under section 133 of 
title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY JUDGESHIP.

    The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of 
the Senate, 1 additional district judge for the northern district of 
Ohio. The first vacancy in the office of district judge in the northern 
district of Ohio which occurs 5 years or more after the date of the 
enactment of this Act shall not be filled.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO TABLE.

    In order that the table contained in section 133(a) of title 28, 
United States Code, will reflect the change in the number of permanent 
district judgeships authorized as a result of section 1, the item 
relating to the northern district of Ohio in such table is amended by 
striking ``11'' and inserting ``12''.
                                 <all>
```
Argued and submitted February 25,

affirmed April 13, 1994

#### STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, *v.*RICHARD RAY DALLABONA, *Appellant.*

(92-09-5807-C; CA A78299)

872 P2d 444

Alan H. Biedermann, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*237PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals sentences imposed after his convictions for rape in the first degree, ORS 163.375, and sexual abuse in the first degree, ORS 163.427, following his pleas of guilty pursuant to plea negotiations. Before accepting defendant’s plea, the court noted that the sexual abuse count would merge with the rape count for sentencing purposes and that defendant’s grid block for rape in the first degree appeared to be 9-E. However, the presentence investigation report placed defendant in grid block 10-C, and the court imposed sentence using that block. Defendant did not object to the sentences.

Defendant now argues that the court erred in sentencing him under crime seriousness category 10, instead of 9, and in imposing a post-prison supervision term of more than 36 months, pursuant to ORS 144.103. Relying on *State v. Owens,*112 Or App 462, 829 P2d 726 (1992), he argues that the errors are apparent on the face of the record. However, as noted in *State v. Rodriquez,*127 Or App 89, 870 P2d 270 (1994), we decided *Owens*before the Supreme Court had made it clear that we do not have unbridled discretion to review unpreserved errors but must justify our exercise of discretion. Defendant has not provided a compelling argument for us to review the error.

Affirmed.
#### § 217.132 Permissible methods of taking.

Under an LOA issued pursuant to § 216.106 of this chapter and § 217.136, the Holder of the LOA (hereinafter “Navy”) may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the area described in § 217.130(b) by harassment associated with construction activities related to the multifunctional expansion and modification of Dry Dock 1, provided the activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of the regulations in this subpart and the applicable LOA.
**Read more of the May Dispatch** Protecting First Amendment Rights in Jonesboro, Arkansas
       Optimizing Mental and Physical Health at the Phoenix Police Department
        Police Use of Mindfulness Training for Mental Health
         How to Optimize Officer Resilience for Professional and Personal Challenges
          Thin Blue Line Motorsports: Broadening the Discussion about Officer Wellness
         
            COVID-19: Barriers to Youth Engagement	  
             Collaborating to Protect and Serve the Most Vulnerable