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

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2:13-cr-289 (08)

JUDGE SMITH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING

KYLE M. IRVIN,

Defendant.

ORDER

On January 16, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that the Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea to Count One

of the Second Superseding Indictment charging him with conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.

Defendant, represented by counsel, waived his right to appear on the matter before a District

Judge. The Magistrate Judge conducted the colloquy required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure. Defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, free from coercion, and had a basis

in fact. 

Defendant was specifically informed of his right to contest the Report and Recommendation

by filing any objections within 14 days of the issuance of the Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant did

not file any objections. 

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ACCEPTS 

Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count One of the Second Superseding Indictment. Defendant is hereby

Case: 2:13-cr-00289-EAS Doc #: 261 Filed: 02/25/15 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
adjudged guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-

Case: 2:13-cr-00289-EAS Doc #: 261 Filed: 02/25/15 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 514 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 514

 To authorize testimony and legal representation in City of Eugene v. 
                        Peter Vincent Chabarek.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 16, 2006

     Mr. Frist (for himself and Mr. Reid) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize testimony and legal representation in City of Eugene v. 
                        Peter Vincent Chabarek.

Whereas, in the case of City of Eugene v. Peter Vincent Chabarek, Citation No. 
        06-05546, pending in Municipal Court for the City of Eugene, testimony 
        has been requested from Juine Chada, an employee in the office of 
        Senator Ron Wyden;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C.  288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct 
        its counsel to represent an employee of the Senate with respect to any 
        subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their official 
        responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That Juine Chada is authorized to testify in the case of 
City of Eugene v. Peter Vincent Chabarek, except concerning matters for 
which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Juine 
Chada in connection with the testimony authorized in section one of 
this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
(Reap. Dec. 8972)

Entry Nos. 1880; 1434.

#### Thomas B. Wilson *&*Company *v.*United States

(Decided on remand [A. R. D. 70] August 22, 1957)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard H. Welsh,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Fobd, Judge:

The appeal listed above has been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the market value or price *632at or about the date of exportation herein, at which such or similar merchandise to that covered by entry No. 1434 was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including all costs and charges specified in section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, was French francs 207.96, less 15.36 per centum, each, net, packed, and that there was no higher export value for such or similar merchandise.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find the proper dutiable foreign value for the subject merchandise to be French francs 207.96, less 15.35 per centum, each, net, packed. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 77 (Monday, April 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7657]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than May 8, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Harry Lynn and Oksana Williams, Plano, Texas; to acquire 
additional voting shares of Snook Bancshares, Inc., Snook, Texas, and 
indirectly acquire additional voting shares of First Bank of Snook, 
Snook, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 18, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-7657 Filed 4-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Order entered June 24, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01411-CR

ANTHONY PHIFER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-75027-V

ORDER

On May 21, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s 

brief had not been filed. On June 10, 2015, we received appellant’s brief. On June 15, 2015, we 

struck the brief tendered by counsel because it contained the complete name of the complaining 

witness. We ordered counsel to file, within ten days, an amended brief that identifies the 

complaining witness by her initials only. The Court now has before it appellant’s June 22, 2015 

motion to extend time to file his brief. However, the extension request addresses the brief that 

was tendered on June 10, 2015, and is not in response to this Court’s order striking the brief and 

ordering it redrawn. Accordingly, we DENY the June 22, 2015 extension motion as moot.
The Court’s June 15, 2015 order striking the brief tendered on June 10, 2015 and 

ordering that an amended brief be filed within ten days remains in effect. Appellant’s amended 

brief using only the initials of the child is due by MONDAY, JUNE 29, 2015.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Daniel Oliphant and the Dallas 

County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT GEORGE D. FISH, STEPHEN HRABRICK AND JONATHAN A. BRISKIN, Respondents

v. TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 760 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER
PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 8th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED . The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:
(1) Did the Commonwealth Court err in deciding that the Lower Merion business privilege tax could not apply to a business receiving gross receipts from the business of leasing real estate? M.D. Appeal Dkt. 29 2015
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

vs.

 CASE NO. 2:12-cv-1132

REBECCA A. BRANDT, JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE TERENCE P. KEMP

Defendant.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or trial.

Pursuant to the Opinion and Order filed March 26, 2014, JUDGMENT is hereby

entered for Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to recover $116,083.66 for Ms. Brant’s 2001 tax

liability and $235,332.39 for her 2002 liability, plus statutory accruals for each amount

after August 1, 2013. This case is DISMISSED.

Date: March 26, 2014 JOHN P. HEHMAN, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:12-cv-01132-EAS-TPK Doc #: 14 Filed: 03/26/14 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
fzmd-ex1041_238.htm



 

Exhibit 10.41

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROMISSORY NOTE

This Amendment No. 1 to Promissory Note (this “Amendment”), dated as of March 25, 2022 (the “Effective Date”), by and between FUSE MEDICAL, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”), and NC 143 FAMILY HOLDING, LP, a Texas limited partnership (“Lender”) amends the Promissory Note, dated May 6, 2020, issued by Borrow to Lender in principal sum of $180,000.00 (the “Promissory Note”).

RECITALS

A.Borrower and Lender desire to amend the Promissory Note on the terms set forth herein; and

B.Borrower has requested, and the Lender has agreed, to amend the Promissory Note to extend the Maturity Date to May 5, 2023.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1.Definitions.  Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the respective meanings given them in the Promissory Note.

2.Amendment to the Promissory Note.  The final sentence of the first paragraph of the Promissory Note is hereby amended by deleting the date “May 5, 2022” and substituting in lieu thereof the date “May 5, 2023”.

3.Limited Effect.  Except as expressly provided hereby, all of the terms and provisions of the Promissory Note are and shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed by the Borrower.  The amendment contained herein shall not be construed as a waiver or amendment of any other provision of the Promissory Note or for any purpose except as expressly set forth herein or a consent to any further or future action on the part of the Borrower that would require the waiver or consent of the Lender.

4.Effectiveness.  This Amendment shall become effective upon the Effective Date.

5.Governing Law.  This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Texas.

6.Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement, and any party hereto may execute this Amendment by signing and delivering one or more counterparts. Delivery of an executed counterpart of this Amendment electronically or by facsimile shall be effective as delivery of an original executed counterpart of this Amendment.

 

27665855v2 80130.003.00



 

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

 

 

27665855v2 80130.003.00



 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.

 



 

27665855v2 80130.003.00
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-31129

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NORMAN DALE SHANAHAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

* * * * * * * * * *

CONSOLIDATED WITH

No. 98-31139

* * * * * * * * * *

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PATRICIA ANN SHANAHAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CR-289-2-R

- - - - - - - - - -

July 29, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and STEWART, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Norman Dale Shanahan and Patricia Ann Shanahan entered a

conditional guilty plea to possession of methamphetamines with
No. 98-31129

c/w 98-31139 

-2-

the intent to distribute. They contend on direct appeal that the

district court erred in refusing to suppress evidence found by

and statements made to the police during a search of their home.

In reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to

suppress based on live testimony at a suppression hearing, this

court must accept the district court’s findings of fact unless

they are clearly erroneous or influenced by an incorrect view of

the law. United States v. Foy, 28 F.3d 464, 474 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Voluntariness of consent to enter a residence or make a search

“is ‘a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all

the circumstances.’” United States v. Kelley, 981 F.2d 1464, 1470

(5th Cir. 1993)(citation omitted). Whether an interrogation is

custodial, requiring that the detainee be given warnings under

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is a legal question

subject to de novo review. See United States v. Paul, 142 F.3d

836, 843 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 271 (1998),

petition for cert. filed (U.S. Feb. 5, 1999)(No. 98-9429).

The district court’s findings regarding whether the entry of

the police into the Shanahans’ home was voluntarily permitted was

not clearly erroneous. Likewise, the district court’s

determination that the Shanahans voluntarily signed the consentto-search form was not clearly erroneous under the six-factor

test of Kelley, 981 F.2d at 1470. A de novo review of whether

the Shanahans were in custody at the time they made their

incriminating statements shows that the Shanahans were not in

custody under the four-factor test of United States v.
No. 98-31129

c/w 98-31139 

-3-

Bengivenga, 845 F.2d 593, 598-600 (5th Cir. 1988)(en banc). 

Therefore, the refusal of the district court to suppress the

evidence seized at the Shanahans’ home and the inculpatory

statements made by the Shanahans during the search is AFFIRMED.
| (logo) WELLS

            FARGO | Commercial  Mortgage Servicing  D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Poolingand Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2016, by and among BANC OF AMERICAMERRILL LYNCH COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE, INC, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, asSpecial Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as CertificateAdministrator, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee and PARKBRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset RepresentationsReviewer with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series2016-UBS10 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 of thisAgreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Servicesdo hereby certify that:

 

1.             Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.             To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of itsobligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 2:12-cv-662 

v. JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST 

Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel 

SKREENED LTD., et al., 

Defendants. 

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of the October 28, 2014 motion to dismiss 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). (ECF No. 69.) In this agreed-upon 

motion, Plaintiff, acting on behalf of the parties, asks the Court to dismiss all claims and 

counterclaims with prejudice. In accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement, the Court 

GRANTS the motion and retains jurisdiction to enforce that agreement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

GREGORY L. FROST 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case: 2:12-cv-00662-GLF-MRA Doc #: 70 Filed: 10/29/14 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  R AUL M ORALES -I ZQUIERDO , Petitioner, No. 03-70674

v. Agency No.



#  A79-166-816 A LBERTO R. G ONZALES , Attorney General, ORDER

Respondent. 

# 

Filed September 12, 2005 Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge.

ORDER Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard bythe en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The threejudge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.

13267PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2005 Thomson/West.
# Official Journal C 321/16 D

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 321 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5116 December 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 321

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5116 December 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2008/C 321/01 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products
  (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)
   (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2008/C 321/01

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products
  (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)
   (1)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2008/C 321/02 | Note to the reader (see page 3 of the cover) | s3 |

2008/C 321/02

Note to the reader (see page 3 of the cover)

Note to the reader

s3

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6127

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN ROMA BRYAN, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big 

Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (2:15-cr-00015-JPJ-6; 2:17-cv-81260-JPJPMS)

Submitted: October 31, 2019 Decided: November 15, 2019

Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Roma Bryan, III, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Marie Harrigan Kulpa, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Roma Bryan, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion 

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). Although the parties have not questioned our 

jurisdiction, we “have an independent obligation to verify the existence of appellate 

jurisdiction.” Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 168 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders and certain 

interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Our review of the 

record reveals that the district court’s order is not a final order because the court did not 

rule on Bryan’s claims challenging the adequacy of the factual basis supporting his guilty 

plea to the firearm offense and asserting that counsel was ineffective at sentencing for 

failing to advise Bryan of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.23, p.s. (2015), and 

to argue for a downward departure under that Guidelines provision, all raised in his 

response to the Government’s “Motion to Dismiss in Response to Petitioner’s [§] 2255 

Petition.” See Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696-97 (4th Cir. 2015).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory and remand to the district court 

for consideration of the unresolved claims. See id. at 699. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED
Exhibit 15








Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated November 5, 2003 on our reviews of
interim financial information of UniSource Energy Corporation (the
Company) and Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) as of and for the period
ended September 30, 2003 and included in the Company's and TEP's
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended is incorporated
by reference in the Company's Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.
333-43765, 333-43767, 333-43769, 333-53309, 333-53333, 333-53337 and 333-
99317), on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-31043, 333-93769 and 333-103392), and in
TEP's Amendment No. 3 to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-
65143).

Very truly yours,


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP