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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LONNIE CHARLES CHALMERS,

Plaintiff,

VS.

CITY OF DALLAS, ET AL.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:22-CV-0585-G-BK

)

)

)

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions and a

recommendation in this case. To the extent that the plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to

File Amended Complaint with Request for Extention [sic]” (docket entry 26)

constitutes an objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the District Court

has conducted a de novo review of the proposed findings and recommendation. The

objections are overruled, and the court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The defendants’ motions to

dismiss are thus GRANTED, and the plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. To the extent that the plaintiff requests an extension of

Case 3:22-cv-00585-G-BK Document 27 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 318
time to file an amended complaint, the motion is GRANTED. The plaintiff’s

amended complaint is due by January 17, 2023.

SO ORDERED.

November 17, 2022.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:22-cv-00585-G-BK Document 27 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 319
EXHIBIT 32.1








STATEMENT OF BENNETT S. LEBOW,


CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF BORDERS GROUP, INC.


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











I, Bennett S. LeBow, certify that the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2010, of Borders Group, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Borders Group, Inc.




















Date: September 1, 2010







/s/ BENNETT S. LEBOW


Bennett S. LeBow


Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


Borders Group, Inc.
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov> To: Craig Bleth <cbleth@minnkota.com> Date: 7/22/2010 9:54 AM Subject: Re: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION - PLANT ID 09166 - MILTON R. YOUNG Attachments: pic01969.gif

Greetings,

EPA has reviewed your extension requ est for the steam electric effluent guidelines questionnaire for the Minnkota Power, Milton R. Young facility. The deadline for your plant to submit Version 2 of the completed questionnaire is extended to October 15, 2010.

If you need assistance during the completion of the steam electric questionnaire, please contact the steam electric helpline via e-mail at steamhelp@erg.com or by phone at 1-877-353-7560.

Sincerely,

(Embedded image moved to file: pic01969.gif)

From: Craig Bleth <cbleth@minnkota.com>

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: John Graves <jgraves@minnkota.com>, Scott Hopfauf <SHopfauf@minnkota.com>, Gerry Pfau <gpfau@minnkota.com>, Luther Kvernen <lkvernen@minnkota.com>

Date: 07/07/2010 06:00 PM

Subject: REQUEST FOR EXTENSIO N - PLANT ID 09166 - MILTON R. YOUNG

Ms. Alicea,

Minnkota Power requests a 30-day extension for submittal of the Effluent Guidelines ICR, received by our facility on June 18, 2010. The reason for our extension request is the present staff workload related to construction of Consent Decree ai r pollution control projects and planning for the upcoming fall outage on Unit 2 (which begins on September 11).

Please contact me with any questions you may have. Will you be confirming the request has been granted?Regards,

Craig J. Bleth Plant Environmental Superintendent Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. Milton R. Young Station Office: 701-794-7261
The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the 1

District of Nebraska.

___________

No. 96-2274

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Virgil Haskins, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: October 18, 1996

 Filed: October 22, 1996

___________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Virgil Haskins appeals the 70-month sentence imposed by the district

court after he pleaded guilty to conspiring, between January 1991 and

1

January 1994, to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine

and cocaine base. We affirm.

Haskins's presentence report recommended a total offense level of 25,

a Category III criminal history, and a Guidelines sentencing range of 70 to

87 months. Haskins objected to the recommended assessment of one criminalhistory point for a March 1992 conviction for possessing less than one ounce

of marijuana; one point for a March 1995 conviction for possessing drug

paraphernalia and less than one ounce of marijuana; and two points for

another March 1995
-2-

conviction for obstructing the administration of law and possessing less

than one ounce of marijuana. He argued that possession of marijuana was

"relevant conduct" to the instant conspiracy offense, and that the court

should consider the weight of the marijuana as part of the drug-quantity

calculation, rather than give him criminal-history points for these

convictions. The court overruled his objection.

In determining whether conduct that resulted in a conviction should

affect a defendant's base offense level rather than his criminal history

category, a court should consider several factors, including the temporal

and geographic proximity of the offenses; whether there were common victims,

accomplices, or purposes; and whether there was a common criminal plan or

intent. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, comment. (n.9); United States v. Blumberg,

961 F.2d 787, 792 (8th Cir. 1992). We conclude the district court did not

clearly err in refusing to treat Haskins's marijuana convictions as relevant

conduct, because they were not sufficiently connected to the cocaine

conspiracy to warrant the conclusion that they were part of the same course

of conduct. See United States v. Sheahan, 31 F.3d 595, 599 (8th Cir. 1994)

(standard of review); United States v. Lewis, 987 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (8th

Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3534 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3534

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 113 West Michigan Avenue in Jackson, Michigan, as the ``Officer James 
                     Bonneau Memorial Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. OFFICER JAMES BONNEAU MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 113 West Michigan Avenue in Jackson, Michigan, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Officer James Bonneau Memorial Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Officer 
James Bonneau Memorial Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

IGNACIO CARTEGENA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 538 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of May, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### BEVINS et al. v. WEST et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 12, 1951.

*869Kenneth A. Howe, Pikeville, for appellants.

Francis M. Burke, Wine, Venters & Stephenson and Edgar N. Venters, Pike-ville, for appellees.

CLAY, Commissioner.

This controversy involves the correct location of a boundary line between lots owned by the respective parties. The action was brought by appellees to quiet title after appellants had removed a fence dividing the properties. The Chancellor found the correct line to be as claimed by ap-pellees, and ordered appellants to restore the fence.

The titles of both parties are traced to a common source. In 1934 the real estate of one Louisa Murphy was partitioned and Commissioner’s Deeds conveyed to different parties several adjoining lots. Appellants own lot No. 4 and' appellees lot No. 3. The descriptions in the deeds are free from ambiguity.

Each party had an engineer make a new survey of the lots. They both began at an agreed corner. Their conclusions as to the proper location of the dividing line are different. The determination of the controversy depends upon which survey was the more accurate.

The engineer testifying for appellees based his survey principally upon the- Commissioner’s Deeds under which the original tract was divided. Appellants’ expert based his survey principally upon a plat and notes made by one Auxier in 1934 prior to the partition. The deeds do not refer to this plat, nor is it recorded.

1 In our opinion the Chancellor was justified in finding that the -correct boundary line was established by appellees’ expert. While his testimony was quite technical, he produced a blueprint which conformed to the deed descriptions. On the other hand, appellants’ principal witness was forced to admit that the original Aux-ier plat was somewhat inconsistent with the deed descriptions, and he practically admitted that appellees’ engineer correctly followed the deed descriptions.

It is appellants’ argument that the proper guiding rule, in a case of this sort is to retrace as nearly as possible the lines projected by the surveyor at the time they were originally drawn, and that therefore we should follow the original Auxier plat as -interpreted by their principal witness. Our examination of this plat,, however, indicates that it is not complete, and in one vital respect appears to be inaccurate. If was not recorded or referred to in the deed, and therefore was not a part of the conveyance. If there is a conflict between this plat and the deed descriptions, there being no ambiguity in the latter, surely we must follow the deeds. In our opinion the evidence amply supported the finding for ap-pellees.

The judgment is affirmed.
In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 14-1284

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ADEL DAOUD,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 12 CR 723 — Sharon Johnson Coleman, Judge.

____________________

ARGUED JUNE 4 & JUNE 9, 2014 — DECIDED JUNE 16, 2014

SUPPLEMENTAL CLASSIFIED OPINION DECIDED JULY 14, 2014

____________________

Before POSNER, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

POSNER, Circuit Judge.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

DESIGNATION OF CHAIR OF THE

DOMESTIC RELATIONS PROCEDURAL

RULES COMMITTEE :

:

:

:

: NO. 670

CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12 th day of October , 2017, Walter J. McHugh, Esquire, is

designated as Chair of the Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee,

commencing January 25, 2018.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# ACTION:

Notice and request for comments. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to request approval on a new, and/or currently approved information collection. 

# DATES:

Submit comments on or before January 8, 2001.

# ADDRESSES:

Send all comments regarding whether these information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, whether the burden estimate is accurate, and if there are ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the collections, to James Rivera, Senior Program Analyst, Office of Disaster, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, S. W., Suite 6050. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Rivera, Senior Program Analyst, 202-205-6734 or Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst, (202)205-7030. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Title:*                     Disaster Business Loan Application.                

*Form No's:*                     5, 739A and 1368.                

*Description of Respondents:*                     Small Businesses.                

*Annual Responses:*                     16,853.                 

*Annual Burden:*                     48,561.                

*Title:*                     Disaster Survey Worksheet.                

*Form No:*                     987.                

*Description of Respondents:*                     Individuals, Businesses, and Public Officials within an area requesting a Disaster Declaration.                

*Annual Responses:*                     4,000.                

*Annual Burden:*                     332.                

Curtis B. Rich,

Acting Chief, Administrative Information Branch.

[FR Doc. 00-28452 Filed 11-6-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-00094-X

§

VIAJE DEMITRI VAUGHN (1) §

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry of a Plea of 

Guilty, the Consent of the defendant, and the Report and Recommendation Concerning Plea of Guilty of 

the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto having been filed within fourteen days of 

service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the 

Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge concerning the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is

hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and VIAJE DEMITRI

VAUGHN (1) is hereby adjudged guilty of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), 924(a)(2) and (2) – False Statement 

During the Purchase of a Firearm. Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court's scheduling 

order.

 The defendant is ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The Court adopts the findings of the United States Magistrate Judge by clear and convincing 

evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the 

community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ Upon motion, this matter shall be set for hearing before the United States Magistrate Judge who 

set the conditions of release for determination, by clear and convincing evidence, of whether the 

defendant is likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released under 

§ 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The defendant is not ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) pending determination 

of whether it has been clearly shown that there are exceptional circumstances under § 3145(c) 

why the defendant should not be detained under § 3143(a)(2), and whether it has been shown by 

clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released under § 3142(b) or (c). This matter shall be referred to the 

United States Magistrate Judge who set the conditions of release.

Signed this 19th day of September, 2022.

________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cr-00094-X Document 46 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 94
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 275

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That, notwithstanding the provisions of sec3 tion 132(a)(1) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of

4 1946 (2 U.S.C. 198), the House of Representatives and

5 the Senate shall not adjourn for a period in excess of three

6 days, or adjourn sine die, until both Houses of Congress

7 have adopted a concurrent resolution providing either for

8 an adjournment (in excess of three days) to a day certain

9 or for adjournment sine die.

Passed the House of Representatives July 29, 1994.

Attest:

Clerk.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 275

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Waiving the requirement in section 132 of the Legeach year. gress adjourn sine die not later than July 31 of islative Reorganization Act of 1946 that the Con-
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3627 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3627

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 10, 2013

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To require the Attorney General to report on State law penalties for 
             certain child abusers, 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 ``Kilah Davenport Child Protection Act 
of 2013''.

SEC. 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL REPORT.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
and again 3 years thereafter, the Attorney General shall publish and 
submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States 
Senate a report on the penalties for violations of laws prohibiting 
child abuse in each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 
each territory of the United States, including whether the laws of that 
State, District, or territory provides for enhanced penalties when the 
victim has suffered serious bodily injury, or permanent or protracted 
loss or impairment of any mental or emotional function.

SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF PREDICATE FOR INCREASED PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN 
              DOMESTIC ASSAULTS.

    Section 117(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``, or against a child of or in the

              

 care of the person committing the domestic assault'' after ``intimate 
partner''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 9, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
| 1.   | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-61231) pertaining to the 1998 stock option plan of PDI, Inc., |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-60512) pertaining to the 2000 Omnibus Incentive Plan of PDI, Inc., and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.   | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-123312) pertaining to the 2004 Stock Award and Incentive Plan of PDI, Inc.; |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
|--------|---------------------------|
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Stratus Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge:





(1) This Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (“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.





Date:  April 25, 2011/s/ John MoynahanName:    John MoynahanTitle:     Chief Financial Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.