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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No: 2:15-cr-20382 

-v- Honorable Victoria Roberts 

D-1 PAUL NICOLETTI, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford 

 Defendant. 

Craig Weier 

United States Attorneys Office 

Assistant United States Attorney 

211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

(313) 226-9678 

Craig.Weier@usdoj.gov 

Paul J. Stablein 

Paul Stablein, PLLC 

Attorney for Defendant 

380 North Old Woodward Ave, Ste 

320 

Birmingham, Michigan 48009 

(248) 540-1600 

PaulStablein@StableinLaw.com 

STIPULATION TO 

EXTEND DATE FOR VOLUNTARY 

SURRENDER TO THE BUREAU OF PRISONS 

_____________________________ 

WHEREAS Mr. Nicoletti has received notice from the Bureau of Prisons to 

surrender at FCI Morgantown, Morgantown, WV, on April 1, 2021; 

WHEREAS Mr. Nicoletti underwent left knee arthroscopy with partial medial 

meniscectomy and chondroplasty surgery on March 10, 2021, performed by Dr. 

Leonardo Cavinatto, and that Mr. Nicoletti will require four to six weeks of physical 

therapy; 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties 

that Mr. Nicoletti’s surrender date be extended to on or after May 3, 2021. 

Case 2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM ECF No. 204, PageID.3395 Filed 03/28/21 Page 1 of 3
/s/Craig Weier w/permission PJS 

Craig Weier 

United States Attorneys Office 

Assistant United States Attorney 

/s/Paul J. Stablein 

Paul Stablein 

Paul Stablein, PLLC 

Attorney for Defendant 

 

Case 2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM ECF No. 204, PageID.3396 Filed 03/28/21 Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No: 2:15-cr-20382 

-v- Honorable Victoria Roberts 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford 

D-1 PAUL NICOLETTI, 

 Defendant. 

Craig Weier 

United States Attorneys Office 

Assistant United States Attorney 

211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

(313) 226-9678 

Craig.Weier@usdoj.gov 

Paul J. Stablein 

Paul Stablein, PLLC 

Attorney for Defendant 

380 North Old Woodward Ave, Ste 

320 

Birmingham, Michigan 48009 

(248) 540-1600 

PaulStablein@StableinLaw.com 

ORDER 

Based on the parties’ stipulation, the Court extends Mr. Nicoletti’s voluntary 

surrender date to on or after May 3, 2021. 

 ORDERED. 

 s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

 The Honorable Victoria Roberts 

 United States District Court Judge 

Entered: 3/28/2021 

Case 2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM ECF No. 204, PageID.3397 Filed 03/28/21 Page 3 of 3
#### § 531.11 Implementation.

*Generally.* Performance under an NSA or amendment thereto may not begin before the day it is effective.

[83 FR 34792, July 23, 2018]
#### § 30.10-49 Permit—TB/ALL.

The term *permit* refers to endorsement on the certificate of inspection, authorizing the presence on board of liquid flammable or combustible cargoes in bulk, issued by an Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, for a tank vessel which is found to be in substantial compliance with the regulations in this subchapter.
GingerVagenas (AIR-2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 To Docket ID No. EPA-R09-0AR-2013-0686: Harold Peterson 7911 Westhaven Drive SW Apt 3 Huntsville, AL 35802-1431 April14, 2014

Good morning. My name is Harold Peterson, and Iam an environmental scientist specializing in air pollution. Iam writingto support this docket as written. The Phoenix-Mesa area appears to only be in attainment ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone standard, notthe 2008 standard. ·Thereforethe area should still be considered in ozone nonattainment, which appears to be the case. However, Iam able to supportthe more limited designation of 1997 8-hourozone attainment. Iwould encourage the Arizona Department of Environmental Qualityto continue working to attain the 2008 standard as well. It was also right to contact the Pima/Maricopa Indians within the Phoenix metroto discuss this proposal. I have no further comments regarding this docket. Sincerely,

Harold Peterson
EX32.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 In connection with the Quarterly Report of POP N GO, (the  "Company"), on Form
 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
 and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Melvin Wyman,
 President and Sole Director (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial
 Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) of POP N GO. (the "Registrant"),
 certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
 Section 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 result of operations of the Company.

February 14, 2005

/s/Melvin Wyman
--------------
Melvin Wyman
Chairman, and Chief Financial Officer
(Principle Financial)
#### JOSEPH MEYERS, RESPONDENT, v. COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANT.

Submitted May 8, 1929

Decided July 5, 1929.

*620Before Justices Parker, Black and Bodine.

Eor the respondent, *David M. Litwin.*

For the appellant, *Ealisch & Ealisch.*

Pee Curiam.

The court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $473.64. This judgment covered the difference between the rent reserved in the lease on a garage upon which this suit was brought and the amount of rent received under a new lease, executed by the plaintiff below with a new tenant, for the months of June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 1927, and January, 1928. There were three defendants, the two tenants, Busweiler and Reese, and the Columbia Casualty Company, which company became surety to the landlord for the performance of the covenants in the lease by Busweiler and Reese.

The right of the plaintiff to recover is based upon a written lease and a bond. The defendant contends that the parties to the original lease surrendered the same, and that hence there is no liability. There is no proof of such surrender. In fact, the proofs do show that the minds of the parties never met on such a relinquishment.

The next point suggested is that the new lease was made without notice to the surety. But no notice was required under the contract. Counsel for the appellant states in his brief that the surety in this case is in an identical position with the tenant.

The judgment below should be affirmed.
§ 28.800 Applicability and general requirements. ( a ) This subpart applies to each fish tender vessel engaged in the Aleutian trade that has not undergone a major conversion and: ( 1 ) Was operated in Aleutian trade before September 8, 1990; or
( 2 ) Was purchased to be used in the Aleutian trade before September 8, 1990, and entered into service in the Aleutian trade before June 1, 1992.
( b ) Except as noted otherwise in this subpart, a vessel subject to this subpart must also comply with the requirements of subparts A, B, and C of this part.
( c ) Each fish tender vessel engaged in the Aleutian trade that undergoes a major conversion after September 15, 1991 must comply with the additional requirements of subpart D.
( d ) A fish tender vessel engaged in the Aleutian trade is subject to inspection under the provisions of 46 U.S.C. 3301 (1), (6), or (7) unless it: ( 1 ) Is not more than 500 gross tons;
( 2 ) Has an incline test performed by a marine surveyor; and
( 3 ) Has written stability instructions posted on board the vessel.
# C_2012025EN.01005202.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/52

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Xeda International v Commission

(Case T-269/11 R)

(Application for interim measures - Plant protection products - Active substance ethoxyquin - Non-inclusion of ethoxyquin in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing ethoxyquin - Application to suspend the operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)

(2012/C 25/102)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Xeda International SA (Saint-Andiol, France) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi, G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2011/143/EU of 3 March 2011 concerning the non-inclusion of ethoxyquin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and amending Commission Decision 2008/941/EC (OJ 2011 L 59, p. 71) and, if necessary, other interim measures.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
# C_2014052EN.01002101.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — BDV Hungary Trading Kft, in liquidation v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-magyarországi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

(Case C-563/12) (1)

1

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 146 - Exemptions on exportation - Article 131 - Conditions laid down by Member States - National legislation requiring that property intended to be exported leave the customs territory of the European Union within a fixed period of 90 days after supply)

2014/C 52/35

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BDV Hungary Trading Kft, in liquidation

Applicant:

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-magyarországi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Kúria — Interpretation of Article 15 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and Articles 131, 146 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemptions on exportation — Company producing and selling tinned food which sells goods intended to be sold by the purchaser in third countries — National legislation making the right to exemption from VAT with respect to the sale of goods for export outside the European Union subject to the condition that the period between the sale and the date when the goods leave the national territory does not exceed 90 days.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 146(1) and 131 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in the context of a supply for export, goods intended to be exported from the European Union must have left the territory of the European Union within a fixed period of three months or 90 days following the date of supply, where merely exceeding that time-limit results in the definitive loss for the taxable person of the right to exemption in relation to that supply.

---

(1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.

1

---
89–008

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107–81

WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII

WITH RESPECT TO THE SAME DAY CONSIDERATION OF

CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE

MAY 24, 2001.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. REYNOLDS, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 150]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 150, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a twothirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from

the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions reported from the

Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver to any special rule

reported on the legislative day of May 26, 2001, providing for consideration or disposition of any measure to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 104 of the concurrent resolution on the

budget for fiscal year 2002, any amendment thereto, any conference

report thereon, or any amendment reported in disagreement from

a conference thereon.

Æ
#### § 404.110 Ratemaking step 10: Review and finalize rates.

The Director reviews the base pilotage rates calculated in § 404.109 of this part to ensure they meet the goal set in § 404.1(a) of this part, and either finalizes them or first makes necessary and reasonable adjustments to them based on requirements of Great Lakes pilotage agreements between the United States and Canada, or other supportable circumstances.

[USCG-2016-0268, 82 FR 41496, Aug. 31, 2017]
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending March 8, 2008

----

Bank Holding CompaniesCovenant Bancshares, Inc., Forest Park, Illinois  -- commenter's request for review of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago's approval of the application to acquire Community Bank of Lawndale, Chicago.					-Denied, March 3, 2008 					

EnforcementFNB Southeast, Reidsville, North Carolina  -- issuance of a consent order of prohibition against Russell K. Henry, a former employee and institution-affiliated party of the former FNB Southeast.					-Announced, March 5, 2008 					Tradition Bank, Bellaire, Texas  -- issuance of a consent order of assessment of a civil money penalty.					-Announced, March 5, 2008 					

Regulations And PoliciesSubprime Mortgages  -- statement to financial institutions servicing residential mortgages on reporting of loss mitigation of subprime mortgages consistent with uniform standards.					-Approved, March 3, 2008 					

Reserve Bank OperationsFederal Reserve Bank of New York  -- to close the Buffalo Branch, effective October 31, 2008.					-Approved, March 3, 2008 					

Testimony And StatementsCondition of the U.S. Banking System  -- statement by Vice Chairman Kohn on March 4, 2008, before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.					-Published, March 4, 2008 					Sovereign Wealth Funds  -- statement by Scott G. Alvarez, General Counsel, before subcommittees of the House Committee on Financial Services on March 5, 2008, regarding the Board's standards for review of investments by sovereign wealth funds in U.S. banks and bank holding companies.					-Reviewed, March 4, 2008 					Unfair and Deceptive Mortgage Practices  -- statement by Leonard Chanin, Associate Director, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, before the California State Senate Banking Committee on March 5, 2008, on the Board's proposed amendments to Regulation Z to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices in the mortgage market.					-Reviewed, March 3, 2008 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: March 13, 2008
#### Calvin Russell, *Respondent, v.*John C. Scheetz and others, *Appellants.*

Judgment and order.reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Hardin, J.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-86,421-01

EX PARTE JAMES MICHAEL RESER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 12-0702-K277A IN THE 368th DISTRICT COURT

FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

assault with a deadly weapon (count one) and illegal restraint (count two). He was sentenced to

fifteen years’ imprisonment in count one and ten years’ imprisonment in count two. The Third Court

of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Reser v. State, No. 03-15-00469-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Oct.

25, 2016) (not designated for publication). 

Applicant contends, inter alia, that his retained appellate counsel rendered ineffective
2

assistance because counsel missed filing deadlines resulting in the appellate court issuing mandate

in this cause. Applicant further contends that counsel’s actions deprived him of the opportunity to

pursue a petition for discretionary review. 

The trial court, based upon the record, finds that appellate counsel missed the deadline for

filing a petition for discretionaryreview and the time for filing anymotion for extension of time, thus

depriving Applicant of the opportunity to pursue a petition for discretionary review. The trial court

recommends that relief be granted. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 

We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition

for discretionary review of the judgment of the Third Court of Appeals in Cause No. 03-15-00469-

CR that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. 12-0702-K277 from the 368th District Court of

Williamson County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with this Court within

30 days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: March 8, 2017

Do not publish
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4107

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. OTIS RICH, a/k/a O, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00411-WDQ-5)

Submitted: September 24, 2009 Decided: October 16, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sicilia Chinn Englert, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Jason M. Weinstein, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Otis Rich pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). In accordance with the negotiated term of imprisonment detailed in the plea agreement, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) (permitting parties to agree to a specific sentence that is binding on the district court upon acceptance of the plea agreement), Rich was sentenced by the district court to 188 months’ imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she asserts there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questions the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and the reasonableness of the sentence. Rich was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government asserts that the court fully complied with Rule 11 and seeks dismissal of the sentencing issue based on the appeal waiver provision in Rich’s plea agreement. Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, we conclude that Rich knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. Further, because the sentencing issue raised by appellate counsel clearly falls within the scope of the waiver, the terms of the agreement

23 will be enforced. Accordingly, we dismiss the sentencing issue. However, because the appeal waiver pertains only to Rich’s sentence, we have reviewed the conviction pursuant to our obligation under Anders . As we have found no meritorious issues for appeal, we affirm Rich’s conviction. This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
§ 502.135 Subpoena of Commission staff personnel, documents or things. ( a ) A subpoena for the attendance of Commission staff personnel or for the production of documentary materials in the possession of the Commission shall be served upon the Secretary. If the subpoena is returnable at hearing, a motion to quash may be filed within seven (7) days of service and attendance shall not be required until the presiding officer rules on said motion. If the subpoena is served in connection with prehearing depositions, the procedure to be followed with respect to motions to quash and replies thereto will correspond to the procedures established with respect to motions and replies in § 502.132(c).
( b ) The General Counsel shall designate an attorney to represent any Commission staff personnel subpoenaed under this section. The attorney so designated shall not thereafter participate in the Commission's decision-making process concerning any issue in the proceeding.
( c ) Rulings of the presiding officer issued under § 502.135(a) shall become final rulings of the Commission unless an appeal is filed within ten (10) days after date of issuance of such rulings or unless the Commission, on its own motion, reverses, modifies, or stays such rulings within twenty (20) days of their issuance. Replies to appeals may be filed within ten (10) days. No ruling of the presiding officer shall be effective until twenty (20) days from date of issuance unless the Commission otherwise directs. [Rule 135.]
[49 FR 44369, Nov. 6, 1984, as amended at 76 FR 10262, Feb. 24, 2011; 80 FR 57307, Sept. 23, 2015]