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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00084-Z-BR

§

BRUNO RAMON ALVAREZ-NUNO (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

BRUNO RAMON ALVAREZ-NUNO (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th 

Cir. 1997), has appeared before me pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 2 of the 

Indictment. After cautioning and examining BRUNO RAMON ALVAREZ-NUNO (1) under oath concerning each of the 

subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense 

charged is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore 

recommend that the plea of guilty be accepted, and that BRUNO RAMON ALVAREZ-NUNO (1) be adjudged guilty of 21 

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C) - POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE METHAMPHETAMINE and 

have sentence imposed accordingly. After being found guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☒ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds 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.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find 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).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds 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.

Date: January 23, 2023

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00084-Z-BR Document 86 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 203
#### Efrain Negron, Appellant, *v.*Anthony Esposito et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Julian C. Trupin, Appellant, *v.*Anthony Esposito et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

October 31, 1957.

*946
      *Samuel A. Neuburger*and *Herbert H. Plever*for appellant in Action No. 2.

*Sol D. Greenstein*for Anthony Esposito and another, respondents.

*Per*Curiam.

In Action No. 1 the judgment should be affirmed, without costs.

In Action No. 2 the attorney who appears for a party has a lien upon his client’s cause of action which cannot be affected by any settlement between the parties before or after judgment. A defendant who has knowledge of a plaintiff’s attorney’s lien is under an affirmative duty to protect the lien, and for his failure so to do is liable for the reasonable value of said attorney’s services to his client *(Morgan*v. *Drewry, S. A. R. L.,*285 App-. Div. 1).

The judgment so far as appealed from should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs.

HofstAdter, Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ., coiicur.

Action No. 1- — Judgment affirmed, etc.

Action No. 2 —Judgment reversed, etc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK; MICHAEL 

G. ANDREN; TACTICAL MACHINING 

LLC, a limited liability company; 

FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, 

INC., a nonprofit corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MERRICK GARLAND, in his Official 

capacity as Attorney General of the 

United States; UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; STEVEN 

DETTELBACH, in his official capacity as 

Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; 

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, 

FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

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

ORDER

Before the Court is intervenor BlackHawk Manufacturing Group d/b/a 80 Percent Arms’

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 103), filed October 20, 2022. To expedite resolution 

of the motion, the Court ORDERS Defendants to respond to the motion by October 28, 2022.

Plaintiffs may file a reply by November 1, 2022. 

SO ORDERED this 24th day of October, 2022.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 104 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1382
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 222 (Thursday, November 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29474]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration


Advisory Committee Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the 
following committee meeting:

    Name: Grain Inspection Advisory Committee.
    Dates: November 28-29, 2000.
    Place: Crystal City Marriott, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Arlington, Virginia.
    Time: 8 am-5 pm on November 28 and 8 am-11:30 am on November 29, 
2000.
    Purpose: To provide advice to the Administrator of the Grain 
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) with 
respect to the implementation of the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 
U.S.C. 71 et seq.).

    The agenda includes a review and discussion of GIPSA's financial 
status, wheat dockage proposal, reauthorization, biotechnology, 
research initiatives, standardization and training services for the 
grain industry, certification of producers and grain elevators, and 
other related issues concerning the delivery of grain inspection and 
weighing services to American agriculture.
    Public participation will be limited to written statements, unless 
permission is received from the Committee Chairman to orally address 
the Committee. Persons, other than members, who wish to address the 
Committee or submit written statements before or after the meeting, 
should contact the Administrator, GIPSA, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 3601, Washington, DC 
20250-3601, telephone (202) 720-0219 or FAX (202) 205-9237.
    The meeting will be open to the public. Persons with disabilities 
who require alternative means of communication of program information 
or related accommodations should contact Marianne Plaus, telephone 
(202) 690-3460 or FAX (202) 205-9237.

    Dated: November 9, 2000.
David R. Shipman,
Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-29474 Filed 11-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-EN-U
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 190 Received in Senate (RDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 190

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 14 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Designating July 17 through July 23, 1993, as ``National Veterans 
                        Golden Age Games Week''.

Whereas from July 17, 1993, through July 23, 1993, the Department of Veterans 
        Affairs Medical Center at Mountain Home, Tennessee, will host the 
        seventh annual Veterans Golden Age Games;
Whereas the games are a national multi-event sports and recreational competition 
        for veterans, age 55 and over, who are currently receiving medical care 
        from the Department of Veterans Affairs;
Whereas sports and recreation are integral components in the rehabilitative 
        medicine programs offered at Veterans Administration hospitals, and help 
        improve the health and quality of life for older veterans;
Whereas veteran athletes from across the United States will compete in events 
        and competitions at the games;
Whereas the National Veterans Golden Age Games Program serves as a showcase for 
        the prevention and therapeutic medical value that sports and recreation 
        provide in the lives of all older Americans; and
Whereas the games provide further recognition of the valiant service given to 
        the Nation by its veterans: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That July 17 through July 23, 
1993, is designated as ``National Veterans Golden Age Games Week'', and 
the President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation 
calling upon the people of the United States to observe such week with 
appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 13, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Sylvester CARTER, Appellant, v. Lelia Louise CARTER, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 17, 1954.

*824S. Jewell Rice, Lexington, Wm. Hill Mackey, Nicholasville, for appellant.

Charles Wylie, Lexington, for appellee.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

A divorce was granted Mrs. Lelia Louise Carter from Sylvester Carter on the ground of cruel treatment. She was given $500 lump sum alimony in addition to household furnishings which she had taken from the home.' Custody of a 41⁄2 year old girl was awarded the mother with the right of visitation by and with the father. The husband’s appeal rests on the ground of non-jurisdiction and error in- awarding the child to the mother and in giving her the. alimony.

During their five years of marriage, the parties lived in Jessamine County. On October 16, 1952, thé wife left the husband and went to Lexington. The next day she filed the suit for divorce, alleging, in conformity with the statute, that Fayette County was the county where she “usually resides.” KRS 452.470. The husband’s testimony indicates that in their last conversation in Nicholasville, his wife showed ■no indication of a purpose to leave him ■and go to Lexington to live. The testimony of the wife is to the contrary. The circumstances support the wife’s contention. Upon comparable facts, we have construed the statute as conferring jurisdiction since no period of time of residence in the county is declared prerequisite to maintaining a suit. It is sufficient that on the day the suit was filed the wife had become a resident of the county with a fixed intention of remaining there permanently. Brumfield v. Baxter, 307 Ky. 316, 210 S.W.2d 972.

The chancellor had the benefit of hearing the case on oral testimony. The record is one of contradictions as to mistreatment or good treatment by the husband. The wife had been employed and her mother generally kept the child-during the day. They have continued to live together in Lexington where the wife has-employment at the University, while the husband has continued to live in Jessamine County. Some attempt was made to show unfitness on the part of the grandmother to care for the child, but in our opinion the attempt failed. The circumstances and conditions at the home of the mother and grandmother are favorable to the welfare of the child. The same, in a lesser degree, however, might be said as to the home of the father and his mother where the child would be placed if custody were given the father. We are not persuaded that the judgment is wrong.

The parties had a joint' bank account to which each contributed and upon which each drew checks. At the time of the. separation the wife withdrew the -balance of about $1,200 and took a good many ■of the furnishings from the home. ■ The evidence as to the husband’s income and earning capacity is rather meager, • but it seems he makes at least $50 or $60 a week. ■The wife’s salary is something less! • No complaint is made of the allowance of $10 a month for the care of the child: ' We do not think the award of an additional $500 alimony is error.

Judgment affirmed.
Case 3:22-cr-00293-E Document 37 Filed 06/20/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 86
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40005

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOEL GOMEZ-ALCARAZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CR-628-1

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Joel Gomez-Alcaraz has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Gomez-Alcaraz raised several issues in his pro se notice of appeal. The record 

is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of GomezAlcaraz’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40005 Document: 00513808517 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2016
No. 16-40005

2

consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States 

v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as the issues raised by Gomez-Alcaraz. We concur 

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-40005 Document: 00513808517 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2016
#### James RITTER, Movant v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 29, 1952.

H. K. Spear, Somerset, for movant.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., for opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied.

Judgment affirmed.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 128502 & (58) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 128502 COA: 252363 Macomb CC: 03-000052-FC PETER HANNA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 15, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. Defendant’s motion for stay of proceedings is DENIED.

t1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 257

To designate the period commencing on November 21, 1993, and ending

on November 27, 1993, and the period commencing on November 20,

1994, and ending on November 26, 1994, each as ‘‘National Adoption

Week’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 8, 1993

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. WOLF, Mr. HYDE, and Mr. EMERSON) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate the period commencing on November 21, 1993,

and ending on November 27, 1993, and the period commencing on November 20, 1994, and ending on November 26, 1994, each as ‘‘National Adoption Week’’.

Whereas Thanksgiving week has been commemorated as

‘‘National Adoption Week’’ for the past 15 years;

Whereas the Congress recognizes that belonging to a secure,

loving, and permanent family is every child’s right;

Whereas the President of the United States has actively promoted the benefits of adoption by implementing a Fed-
2

•HJ 257 IH

eral program to encourage Federal employees to consider

adoption;

Whereas approximately thirty-six thousand children who may

be characterized as having special needs such as being of

school age, being members of a sibling group, being members of a minority group, or having physical, mental, and

emotional disabilities are now in foster care or in institutions financed at public expense and are legally free for

adoption;

Whereas public and private barriers inhibiting the placement

of special needs children must be reviewed and removed

where possible to assure their adoption;

Whereas the adoption of institutionalized or foster care children by capable parents into permanent homes would ensure an opportunity for their continued happiness and

long-range well-being;

Whereas the public and prospective parents must be informed

that there are children available for adoption;

Whereas media, agencies, adoptive parent and advocacy

groups, civic and church groups, businesses, and industries will provide publicity and information to heighten

community awareness of the crucial needs of children

available for adoption; and

Whereas the recognition of Thanksgiving week as ‘‘National

Adoption Week’’ is in the best interest of adoptable children and in the best interest of the public generally:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the period commencing on November 21, 1993, and
3

•HJ 257 IH

1 ending on November 27, 1993, and the period commenc2 ing on November 20, 1994, and ending on November 26,

3 1994, are each designated as ‘‘National Adoption Week’’,

4 and the President of the United States is authorized and

5 requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people

6 of the United States to observe each week with appro7 priate ceremonies and activities.

Æ
# Official Journal C 71/25 F

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 71 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6225 February 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 71

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6225 February 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 71/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — first supplement to the 37th complete edition | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 71/01

Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — first supplement to the 37th complete edition

1

---

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

EN
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
WASHINGTON, D.C.

FY 2019 PRESIDENT’S BUDGET
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCE STATEMENTS

We affirm that:

A. The Chief Information Officer (CIO) has reviewed and had significant input in approving
the Treasury major IT investments portion this budget request*;

B. The CIO has had a significant role in reviewing planned IT support for major program
objectives and significant increases and decreases in IT resources reflected in this budget
request*;

C. The Department has fully implemented its plan for the Federal IT Acquisition Reform
Act (FITARA) Common Baseline element “D” described in OMB M-15-14; and,

D. The Department adequately implements incremental development practices.

. T a er
Signatures We <a oe

Treasury ASsistarit Secretary for Manag

Signature: Ce “Y—

Treasury Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information Systems and CIO

*Neither the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) nor the Special Inspector General for the Troubled
Assets Relief Program (SIGTARP) participated in an IT/RM portfolio review with the CIO for Budget Year 2019
Planning and are excluded from these statements.

**The Assistant Secretary for Management (ASM) oversees budget formulation and execution for the Department.
The Office of Performance Budgeting (OPB) reports to the ASM through the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Management and Budget. The Director, OPB, serves as the Departmental Budget Director and has responsibility
for the formulation and execution of the Department's budget. The ASM is executing this document as the official
who is accountable for ensuring budget compliance with the Federal IT Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA).
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 27

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 27 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on Wednes3 day, January 27, 1993, it stand adjourned until noon on

4 Tuesday, February 2, 1993.

Passed the House of Representatives January 27,

1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
Case 3:22-cv-01326-S-BK Document 15 Filed 06/08/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 57