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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

ABILENE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

v. CASE NO. 1:22-CR-00038-H-BU 

DA YID CERDA FLORES, JR (1) 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLEA OF GUILTY 

BEFORE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Defendant, DAVID CERDA FLORES, JR (1), by consent and under the authority of 

United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 1997), appeared with counsel before the undersigned 

United States magistrate judge for the purpose of entering a plea of guilty under Rule 11 of the 

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

Defendant was placed under oath and personally examined in open court by the 

undersigned concerning the subjects in Rule 11 (b )(1) and the undersigned determined that 

Defendant understood each subject. 

Defendant pleaded guilty, under a plea bargain agreement with the government, to Count 

Three of the three-count Indictment charging Defendant with a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(l), 

924(a)(2) Convicted Felon in Possession of a Firearm. After examining Defendant under oath, the 

undersigned magistrate judge finds the following: 

1. Defendant, upon advice of counsel, has consented orally and in writing to enter this 

guilty plea before a magistrate judge subject to final approval and sentencing by the 

presiding district judge; 

2. Defendant fully understands the nature of the charges, including each essential 

element of the offense(s) charged, and the associated penalties; 

3. Defendant fully understands the terms of the plea agreement and plea agreement 

supplement; 

Case 1:22-cr-00038-H-BU Document 52 Filed 05/03/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 95
4. Defendant understands all constitutional and statutory rights and wishes to waive those 

rights, including the right to a trial by jury and the right to appear before a United States 

district judge; 

5. Defendant's plea is made freely and voluntarily; 

6. Defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; 

7. There is a factual basis for Defendant's plea of guilty; and 

8. The ends of justice are served by acceptance of Defendant's plea of guilty. 

Based on the above, I recommend that Defendant's plea of guilty be accepted, that 

Defendant be adjudged guilty, and that sentence be imposed accordingly. 

Although I have conducted these proceedings and accepted Defendant's plea of guilty, the 

United States district judge has the power to review my actions and possesses final decisionmaking authority in this proceeding. Thus, if Defendant has any objections to these findings or 

any other action of the undersigned, he is required to make those known to the United States district 

judge within fourteen (14) days of today. 

The Clerk will furnish a copy of this Order to each of attorney of record. 

Signed on: 3rd day of May, 2023. 

D. GORDON BR AN , JR. 

UNITED STATES M !STRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:22-cr-00038-H-BU Document 52 Filed 05/03/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 96
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk November 20, 2012

h1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145713

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145713

COA: 310316

Saginaw CC: 10

- 034913

- FC

DAMON LAMONT POINDEXTER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 11, 2012 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
P.1 

OAR Box 1790 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

211) ll-E-7 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/200812:43:16 PM Sheet 211 of 250 
P.2 

A-90-3*? 

IT- E- 7 

NPS COMMENTS ON CLASS I AREA PROTECTION 

(TELEPHONE MESSAGE - 10/23/95)1 

1. NPS still takes position that it is not appropriate to propose de minimis levels applicable 

to AQRVs. Believes that there is a good chance OMB may drop their recommendation to 

propose any levels. 

Action: We have drafted language indicating that EPA is not proposing significance 

levels for AQRVs. Language does encourage FLMs to continue in their studies to develop 

critical thresholds and to provide applicants with relevant info as it becomes available. 

2. Retain phrase "in whole or in part" in def n of "adverse impact on AQRVs." 

Action: "In whole or in part" has been deleted. However, the preamble and 

definition of "adverse impact of AQRVs" makes it clear that the FLM should take into 

account the existing air quality as affected by existing sources. The bottom line is that 

demonstration of adverse impact must address the change in air quality (and resulting 

effects on AQRVs) of the emissions from the proposed source. 

3. Delete term "causal linkage" from preamble discussion concerning the Notice alleging 

potential adverse impacts. Instead, use "sufficient information about". Also, do not use the 

term, as recommended by OMB, in the regulations to define the contents of the Notice. 

Action: The term "causal linkage" has been replaced by "plausible linkage." This 

refers to the connection between the emissions of a particular pollutant from the proposed 

source and the AQRV that is allegedly affected by such emissions. 

4. Do not use OMB's recommended language "extent of adversity" in the criteria for the 

permitting authority's rejection of an adverse impact demonstration. 

Action: We did not include OMB's language because it is inappropriate to consider 

the extent of adversity. Adverse is adverse! If the permitting authority does not agree that 

a potential effect is unacceptable, then they must conclude that such effect is not adverse. 

5. NPS prefers retaining the "give deference to" language concerning the FLM's expertise 

identifying adverse impacts on AQRVs. NPS can live without such terminology, but 

intends to craft some alternative language for the preamble. 

Action: The package includes language provided by OMB which says that the 

permitting authority should "recognize" the FLM's scientific and technical expertise. 

'Telephone message from Molly Ross, National Park Service, to David Solomon, EPA. 
P.3 

6. NPS emphatically rejects the OMB's recommended insert for page 166 ofthe preamble. 

NPS will provide alternative language for insert. 

Action: We have not incorporated OMB's language. DOI has not provided any 

substitute language.
ex1015.htm












LOAN AGREEMENT


 


April 20, 2015







City Group LLC (the “Lender”) of 1201 Orange Street, Suite 600, Wilmington, DE 19801, advanced total of USD$10,000 (the “Principal Sum”) to Cell MedX Corp. (the “Borrower”) of 4575 Dean Martin Drive, STE 2206, Las Vegas, NV 89103.  The Lender advanced the funds on April 20, 2015 via payment made directly to Emerging Growth, LLC (dba TDM Financial) on account of the Borrower as a payment for the Shareholder Development Program dated April 13, 2015.


 


The Borrower agrees to repay the Principal Sum on demand, together with interest calculated and compounded monthly at the rate of six (6) per cent per year (the “Interest”) from April 20, 2015.  The Borrower is liable for repayment for the Principal Sum and accrued Interest and any costs that the Lender incurs in trying to collect the Principal Sum and the Interest.


 


The Borrower will evidence the debt and its repayment of the Principal Sum and the Interest with a promissory note in the attached form.


 


LENDER                                                                          BORROWER


City Group LLC                                                                    Cell MedX Corp.

















/s/ Tom Sharp                                                                     /s/ Yanika Silina


By: Tom Sharp, Director                                                    By: Yanika Silina, CFO
















  





1











  








PROMISSORY NOTE







Principal Amount:  USD$10,000                                                                                                          April 20, 2015












For value received Cell MedX Corp., (the “Borrower”) promises to pay on demand to the order of City Group LLC (the “Lender”) the sum of $10,000 lawful money of United States of America (the “Principal Sum”) together with interest on the Principal Sum from April 20, 2015 (“Effective Date”) both before and after maturity, default and judgment at the Interest Rate as defined below.







For the purpose of this promissory note, Interest Rate means six (6) per cent per year.  Interest at the Interest Rate must be calculated and compounded monthly not in advance from and including the Effective Date (for an effective rate of 6.17% per annum calculated monthly), and is payable together with the Principal Sum when the Principal Sum is repaid.







The Borrower may repay the Principal Sum and the Interest in whole or in part at any time.







The Borrower waives presentment, protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonour of this promissory note.



























BORROWER


Cell MedX Corp.












/s/ Yanika Silina

By: Yanika Silina, CFO








  





2
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Wayne G.Wetherell, certify that:

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ImageWare Systems, Inc.;

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         [Reserved]

(c)          evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(d)         disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.               The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

(a)          all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Dated: | November 20, 2006 |                    | /s/ Wayne G. Wetherell |
|--------|------------------------|-------------------------|------------------------|
|   |                   | Wayne G. Wetherell      |
|   |                   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
1

Cause No. PD-0145-15

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FOR TEXAS 

CYNTHIA AMBROSE, § 

 Petitioner/Appellee, § 

§ On Discretionary Review 

v. § From the Fourth Court of 

§ Appeals – San Antonio 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, § 04-15-00788-CR

 Respondent/Appellant. § 

STATE’S NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT:

 Now comes the State of Texas, Respondent in the above styled and 

numbered cause, and hereby gives notice to the Court that the undersigned 

Assistant Criminal District Attorney intends to appear and present oral argument, 

which the Court has permitted and scheduled for October 7, 2015. 

Respectfully Submitted: 

______________________________ 

S. Patrick Ballantyne 

Assistant Criminal District Attorney 

Bexar County, Texas 

State Bar # 24053759 

101 W. Nueva St., 7th floor 

 San Antonio, Texas 78205 

 210-335-2277 (phone) 

 sballantyne@bexar.org

PD-0143-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 9/3/2015 9:02:36 AM

Accepted 9/3/2015 9:12:58 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I, S. Patrick Ballantyne, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this 

Brief was transmitted this 3rd day of September, 2015, to Dayna L. Jones 

(daynaj33@gmail.com), attorney of record for Petitioner, by email and electronic 

service through a court approved eFiling system. 

______________________ 

S. Patrick Ballantyne
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 173

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding

school prayer.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 31, 1993

Mr. SOLOMON introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States regarding school prayer.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

•HJ 173 IH

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘Nothing in this constitution shall prohibit the inclu5 sion of voluntary prayer in any public school program or

6 activity. No person shall be coerced by the United States

7 or by any State to participate in such prayer. Neither the

8 United States nor any State shall prescribe the content

9 of any such prayer.’’.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 224 (Monday, November 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29588]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1162 002


Kacie Lake Hydro, Inc., Notice of Surrender of Preliminary Permit

November 8, 2000.

    Take notice that Kacie Lake Hydro, Inc., permittee for the proposed 
Kacie Lake Hydroelectric Project, has requested that its preliminary 
permit be terminated. The permit was issued on March 23, 1999, and 
would have expired on February 28, 2002. The project would have been 
located on an unnamed stream, near the city of Unalaska, Alaska.
    The permittee filed the request on October 3, 2000, and the 
preliminary permit for Project No. 11620 shall remain in effect through 
the thirtieth day after issuance of this notice unless that day is 
Saturday, Sunday, or holiday as described in 18 CFR 385.2007, in which 
case the permit shall remain in effect through the first business day 
following that day. New applications involving this project site, to 
the extent provided for under 18 CFR Part 4, may be filed on the next 
business day.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29588 Filed 11-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

 § 

VS. § CRIMINAL NO. 4:22-CR-161-Y 

 § 

DANIEL VARGAS-HERNANDEZ (1) § 

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ADJUDGING DEFENDANT GUILTY 

The Court has reviewed all relevant matters of record in this case, 

including especially (1) the Consent to Administration of Guilty Plea 

and Allocution by United States Magistrate Judge and (2) the Report of 

Action and Recommendation on Plea Before the United States Magistrate 

Judge. No objections to either have been filed within fourteen (14) 

days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, 

the Court concludes that the report and recommendation of the magistrate 

judge on the plea of guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by the 

Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and defendant 

is hereby adjudged guilty. The defendant’s sentence will be imposed in 

accordance with the Court’s sentencing scheduling order. 

SIGNED July 6, 2022. 

 

 _________________________________ 

 TERRY R. MEANS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cr-00161-Y Document 22 Filed 07/06/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 30
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7197

RICHARD S. FETT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (CA-95-792-AM)

Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 6, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard S. Fett, Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended

by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.

No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. Fett v. Director of Virginia

Dep't of Corrections, No. CA-95-792-AM (E.D Va. July 12, 1996).

Further, we deny Appellant's motion requesting appointment of counsel. 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK, et al.,

 Plaintiffs, 

BLACKHAWK MANUFACTURING GROUP INC.

d/b/a 80 Percent Arms,

 Intervenor-Plaintiff,

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTED, and

THE SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, 

INC.

 Intervenors-Plaintiffs,

v.

MERRICK GARLAND, in his Official Capacity as 

Attorney General of the United States, et al.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00691-O

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL AND DESIGNATION OF LEAD COUNSEL FOR

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTED AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.

Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. (Intervenors-Plaintiffs) 

provide notice that the below-listed are appearing as counsel for Intervenors-Plaintiffs in this 

matter as follows:

Chad Flores

cflores@beckredden.com

Texas Bar No. 24059759

Nicholas M. Bruno

nbruno@beckredden.com

Texas Bar No. 24097432

Zachary T. Nelson

(Application for Admission Pending)

znelson@beckredden.com

Texas Bar No. 24127240

Beck Redden LLP

1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500

Houston, Texas 77010-2010

(713) 951-3700

(713) 951-3720 (Fax)

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 121 Filed 11/08/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1630
2

Chad Flores will be lead counsel for Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment 

Foundation, Inc. (Intervenors-Plaintiffs). Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment 

Foundation, Inc. request that copies of all notices and filings be provided to Mr. Flores, Mr. Bruno 

and Mr. Nelson.

Respectfully submitted,

BECK REDDEN LLP

By: /s/ Chad Flores

Chad Flores

cflores@beckredden.com

Texas Bar No. 24059759

Nicholas M. Bruno

nbruno@beckredden.com

Texas Bar No. 24097432

Zachary T. Nelson

znelson@beckredden.com

Texas Bar No. 24127240

1221 McKinney St., Suite 4500

Houston, Texas 77010-2010

Telephone: (713) 951-3700

Facsimile: (713) 951-3720

Counsel for Defense Distributed and 

The Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 121 Filed 11/08/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 1631
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of this submission was served on all counsel of record 

by the Court’s CM/ECF system in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on 

November 8, 2022.

/s/ Chad Flores

Chad Flores

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 121 Filed 11/08/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 1632
# BEP

# DO

# FinCEN

# Fiscal Service

# IRS

# MINT

# OCC

# TIGTA

# TTB
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00311-CV

In re Change to Win

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Change to Win’s petition for writ of mandamus and request for emergency

relief are denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: June 5, 2009
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [UT-912-01-1020-AE-24-1A]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# SUMMARY:

The Bureau of Land Management's Utah Statewide Resource Advisory Council meeting scheduled for November 8-9, 2000, in Bluff, Utah, will now be postponed until after the first of next year.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Sherry Foot, Special Programs, Coordinator, Utah State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 324 South State Street, Salt Lake City, 84111; phone (801) 539-4195.

Dated: November 7, 2000.

Robert A. Bennett,

Associate State Director.

[FR Doc. 00-29121  Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-$$-M