alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States District Court 

Southern District of Ohio 

__________________

Related Case Memorandum 

Criminal Cases 

TO: Judge Black, Judge Dlott 

FROM: Janet McLemore , Deputy Clerk 

DATE: 7/31/18 

SUBJECT: Case Caption: USA v. Tracey Couch 

CASE: Case Number: 1:18cr111 

DISTRICT JUDGE: Judge Black 

File Date: 7/27/18 

This memorandum is to notify you that the defendant information sheet on the above referenced 

case reflects the following alleged related case(s): 

Related Case(s):

Case Caption: USA v. Nilesh Jobalia 

Case Number: 1:18cr87 District Judge: Dlott 

File Date: 6/21/18 Magistrate Judge:

Related Case(s):

Case Caption: 

Case Number: District Judge:

File Date: Magistrate Judge:

Case: 1:18-cr-00111-SJD Doc #: 9 Filed: 08/01/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 20
Memo Re: Related Criminal Cases 

Page 2 

Revised 9/14/2012 

The District Judges having conferred, we respond to Deputy Clerk Janet McLemore 

as follows:

Judges’ Response:

We agree that the cases are not related and that the subject case should remain 

with the Judge to whom it is assigned.

We agree that the cases are related and that the subject case should be

transferred to the docket of Judge

We agree that although the cases are related, the subject case nevertheless should 

remain with the Judge to whom it was assigned.

We are unable to agree and will accept any decision made by the Chief Judge. 

I am the Judge on both/all of the listed cases and have determined that the cases 

are not related. 

I am the Judge on both/all of the listed cases and have determined that the cases 

are related and they shall both/all remain on my docket. 

Other Direction of Judge: _____________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________ 

United States District Judge 

United States District Judge 

United States District Judge 

cc: Courtroom Deputies

s/ Timothy S. Black

Dlott

S/Susan J. Dlott

Case: 1:18-cr-00111-SJD Doc #: 9 Filed: 08/01/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

RANDALL CREMEANS, 

 Petitioner, Civil Action 2:18-cv-633 

 Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 

 Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 

v. 

 

WARDEN, ROSS COUNTY 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 

 Respondent. 

ORDER

 

 For good cause shown, Petitioner’s Motion for an Extension of Time (ECF No. 13) is 

GRANTED. Petitioner must file his Reply to Return of Writ ON OR BEFORE

DECEMBER 5, 2018. Petitioner is cautioned that no further extensions will be granted 

absent a true emergency. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Chelsey M. Vascura 

CHELSEY M. VASCURA 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1119 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1119

  To codify an Executive order securing the United States bulk-power 
                                system.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 18, 2021

  Mr. Duncan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on 
     Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and Reform, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To codify an Executive order securing the United States bulk-power 
                                system.

    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 ``Stopping Chinese Communist 
Involvement in the Power Grid Act''.

SEC. 2. ENACTMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER.

    (a) In General.--The provisions of Executive Order 13920 (85 Fed. 
Reg. 26595; relating to securing the United States bulk-power system 
(May 1, 2020)) (as in effect on May 1, 2020) are enacted into law.
    (b) Publication.--In publishing this Act in slip form and in the 
United States Statutes at Large pursuant to section 112 of title 1, 
United States Code, the Archivist of the United States shall include 
after the date of approval at the end an appendix setting forth the 
text of the Executive order referred to in subsection (a) (as in effect 
on May 1, 2020).
                                 <all>
```
LUMINOUS GLASS DISTRIBUTORS OF FLORIDA, LLC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. AEROTEK, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0568

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's order dated August 17, 2017, and with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER and LUCK, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                   CONSENT OF KPMG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
    We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-01409, 33-11161, 33-22862, 333-31116, 33-31117, 333-31369, 33-31371,
33-50608, 33-50610, 33-56707, 333-61843 and 333-70323) on Form S-8 of Informix
Corporation of our report dated January 27, 1999, relating to the consolidated
balance sheet of Informix Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for the year then ended, and the related schedule as of and for the
year ended December 31, 1998, which report appears in the December 31, 1998,
annual report on Form 10-K of Informix Corporation.
 
                                          /s/ KPMG LLP
 
Mountain View, California
March 29, 1999
Reginald SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3429

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 (a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**
I, Jack H. Brown, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Stater Bros. Holdings Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: February 9, 2005
/s/ Jack H. Brown
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Rizzani de Eccher (USA), Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W912ER-11-C-0001 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 62364 

Jeffrey G. Gilmore, Esq. 

John M. Neary, Esq. 

AkermanLLP 

Washington, DC 

Michael P. Goodman, Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

Nancy L. Pell, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorney 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East 

Winchester, VA 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SHACKLEFORD 

This is the quantum phase of ASBCA No. 61805. The parties have filed a joint 

motion for entry of a consent judgment in favor of appellant in the amount of 

$4,524,796.11. They also represent that interest shall accrue on this amount from 

November 30, 2019 until paid. 

It is the Board's decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e). 7108(b), and the 

parties joint motion that the appeal is sustained. In the nature of a consent judgment, the 

Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of $4,524,796.11 plus 

Contract Disputes Act interest from November 30, 2019 until paid. 

Dated: February 14, 2020 

(Signatures continued) 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I concur 

&~--

OWEN C. WILSON 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

HEIDI i.sRHOUT 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62364, Appeal ofRizzani de 

Becher (USA), Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
Tony BRADFORD v. STATE

CR-15-1196

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017 Reh. denied March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 6224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02196]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #17301 and #17302; WASHINGTON Disaster Number WA-
00100]


Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for the State of 
Washington

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Washington (FEMA-4635-DR), dated 01/05/
2022.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Straight-line Winds, Flooding, Landslides, 
and Mudslides.
    Incident Period: 11/05/2021 through 12/02/2021.

DATES: Issued on 01/27/2022.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 03/07/2022.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/05/2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center,14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of Washington, dated 01/05/2022, is hereby 
amended to change the incident for this disaster to Severe Storms, 
Straight-line Winds, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides. This disaster 
declaration is also amended to re-establish the incident period for 
this disaster as beginning 11/05/2021 through and including 12/02/2021.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Barbara Carson,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2022-02196 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: La s hawn Edward Meane v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 6

- 00 291

- CR

Trial court case number: 1464891

Trial court: 1 83rd District Court of Harris County

This case was abated and remanded to the trial court for the trial court to enter written

findings of fact and conclusions of law related to appellant’s suppression motion in the trial court.

The district clerk has filed a supplemental clerk’s re cord containing the trial court’s findings of

fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, we REINSTATE this case on the Court’s active docket.

Appellant’s brief is ORDERED to be filed within 30 days of the date of this order. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38. 7

.

Appellee’s brief, if any, is ORDERED to be filed within 30 days of the filing of appellant’s

brief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38. 7

.

It is so ORDERED

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Chief Justice Sherry Radack

 Acting individually

Date: October 25, 2016
### BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH DISTRICT, AT TEXARKANA

No. 06

- 15

- 00036

- CV

DeBerry 3 Operating Company, LLC

v.

Quitman Independent School District, et al.

(No. T

- 3625 IN 402ND DISTRI CT COURT OF WOOD COU NTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY
FILING $ 195.00 NOT PAID SMEAD ANDERSON & DUN N

Balance of costs owing to the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas: $195.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK OF THE SIXTH COURT OF APPE ALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for the Sixth District of Texas, this October 8, 2015

.
DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK

By ___

________________________ Deputy
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(File nos. 333-01409, 333-31369, 333-31371, 333-31670, 333-43238, 333-61843, 333-70323, 333-87396,
333-89231, 333-98925, 333-108782, and 333-110970) and on
Form S-3 (File nos. 333-00273 and 333-90667) of
Ascential Software Corporation of our report dated March 16, 2005 relating to the consolidated
financial statements, managements assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Boston, Massachusetts
March 16, 2005
Harold Luis RUVIRA, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0571

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that this administrative appeal from the Department of Revenue, Child Support Program is dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's order dated August 17, 2017, and with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER and LUCK, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000799233
<NAME>                        Heartland Express, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                        0

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         128,027
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,955
<ALLOWANCES>                                       403
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               173,937
<PP&E>                                         145,407
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,329
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 268,055
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,430
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           254
<OTHER-SE>                                     195,134
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   268,055
<SALES>                                        274,828
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               274,828
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  228,577
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 51,976
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,672
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             34,304
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,304
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.34


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Allan VAN VELZER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-10148.

D.C. No. CR-00-00346-JLQ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 13, 2004.

*743Kirby A. Heller, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Daniel R. Schiess, USLV — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David Allan Van Velzer, Jr., FCITA— Federal Correctional Institution, Taft, CA, pro se.

Glynn Burroughs Cartledge, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILER,** and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM***

David Van Velzer (“Van Velzer”) appeals the district court’s decision to dismiss his indictment for violations of the Speedy Trial Act (“STA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-62, without prejudice. He also argues that the trial delay violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, and that the district court plainly erred by failing to include aiding and abetting instructions in its instruction to the jury on wire fraud.

The district court properly considered the three non-exclusive factors regarding prejudice provided by the STA, 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2). *See United States v. Taylor,*487 U.S. 326, 337, 108 S.Ct. 2413, 101 L.Ed.2d 297 (1988). Van Velzer’s crime was clearly serious, the facts and circumstances causing the delay were almost all directly or indirectly attributable to Van Velzer himself, and the impact of reprosecution on the administration of justice or the STA is minimal in light of these precipitating circumstances. *See Taylor,*487 U.S. at 337. The factual findings relied on by the district court in making its STA calculations were also not clearly erroneous. *See United States v. Ramirez-Cortez,*213 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir.2000); *United States v. Clymer,*25 F.3d 824, 829 (9th Cir.1994).

Similarly, a balance of the factors set out in *Barker v. Wingo,*407 U.S. 514, 533, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), weighs against a Sixth Amendment violation. Particularly, Van Velzer has not demonstrated actual prejudice beyond what he has brought on himself by his conduct in this case. *See id.; see also**744*United States v. Lam,*251 F.3d 852 (9th Cir.2001).

Nor did the district court plainly err in its instruction to the jury on money laundering and wire fraud-crimes that do not require a separate finding with regard to aiding and abetting. *See, e.g., United States v. Manion,*339 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

Novemb er 20, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00616

- CR

Romeo ADAMS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR9532

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Appellant’s pro se motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration en

banc is granted. We order a motion for reconsideration en banc due December 30, 2019.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 20th day of November, 2019

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Anthony ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3940

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 1, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Petitioner, Case No. 3:18-cv-248 

vs. 

BRENDA S. GEARHEARDT, District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

 Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman 

 Respondent. 

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 5) AND 

TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE COURT’S DOCKET 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

This is a civil case in which the Government has petitioned the Court to enforce a summons 

issued by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and served upon Respondent. Doc. 1. The 

Government moves to dismiss this action because Respondent has now complied with the IRS 

summons at issue. Doc. 5. For good cause shown, Petitioner’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED 

and this case is TERMINATED on the Court’s docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: September 10, 2018 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge