alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Chaz BUNCH, petitioner, v. David BOBBY, Warden.

No. 12-558.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Brian PARKS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-8185.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

*2022Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24961-24962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11468]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24962]]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 2202]


United States International Telecommunications Advisory Committee 
(ITAC); Notice of Meeting

    The Department of State announces that a meeting of the United 
States International Telecommunications Advisory Committee (ITAC) will 
be held May 17, 1995, 1:30-4:00 p.m., in the East Auditorium of the 
Department of State, 2201 ``C'' Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. The 
Department regrets the short notice of this meeting, which has been 
caused by an unanticipated invitation to participate in an important 
international meeting and the need to obtain timely recommendations 
from ITAC.
    The purpose of ITAC is to advise the Department on policy, 
technical and operational matters and to provide strategic planning 
recommendations, with respect to international telecommunications and 
information issues. The agenda of this meeting is to consider 
Resolution 15--Review of the Rights and Obligations of all Members of 
the Sectors of the Union--of the recent ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 
(Kyoto, 1994) and any related matters. In particular the Department is 
seeking the recommendations of ITAC regarding U.S. participation in the 
first meeting of the Review Committee foreseen by Resolution 15, which 
will be held at ITU Headquarters in Geneva, May 29-31. The Committee 
will review the rights and obligations of ITU members (the ``small-m'' 
members, or non-governmental participants in ITU activities) with the 
aim of enhancing their rights, in recognition of their contribution to 
the work of the ITU and in such a way that their active and effective 
participation is promoted. Questions regarding the agenda or ITAC in 
general may be directed to Richard Shrum, Department of State (202-647-
0050).
    Members of the general public may attend the meetings and join in 
the discussions, subject to the instructions of the chair and seating 
availability. In this regard, entry to the building is controlled. All 
persons planning to attend should advise the Department by leaving a 
message on 202-647-0201, no later than two days before the meeting. 
Enter through the main lobby on C Street. A picture ID will be required 
for admittance.

    Dated: May 3, 1995.
Richard E. Shrum,
ITAC Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 95-11468 Filed 5-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-45-M
Glen E. SEALS, petitioner, v. LOUISIANA.

No. 12-8454.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, denied.
# L_2018264EN.01002201.xml

| 23.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 264/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 264/22

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2018/1588

of 15 October 2018

appointing a member, proposed by the Kingdom of Sweden, of the European Economic and Social Committee

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Swedish Government,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 18 September 2015 and 1 October 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU, Euratom) 2015/1600 (1) and (EU, Euratom) 2015/1790 (2) appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 18 September 2015 and 1 October 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU, Euratom) 2015/1600 (1) and (EU, Euratom) 2015/1790 (2) appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020.

| (2) | A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the mandate of Mr Erik SVENSSON, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the mandate of Mr Erik SVENSSON,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Mr Christian ARDHE, EU Affairs advisor, Heimdal European Affairs, is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2020.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 15 October 2018.

For the Council

The President

E. KÖSTINGER

---

(1)  Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/1600 of 18 September 2015 appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020 (OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 53).

1

(2)  Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/1790 of 1 October 2015 appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020 (OJ L 260, 7.10.2015, p. 23).

2

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

November 21, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40618 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE MONTOYA-RUBIO,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-500-1

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Montoya-Rubio (Montoya) appeals his sentence following

his guilty plea conviction for being found in the United States

after deportation. He contends that the district court plainly

erred in imposing a 16-leve l enhancement at sentencing under

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) , based on his prior conviction for

felony robbery, a crime of violence. We agree.

The guideline requires that the defendant must have been

deported after the felony or that he remained in the United States1 See United States v. Alarcon , 261 F.3d 416, 423 (5th Cir.

2001), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 1099 (2002).

2 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

3 523 U.S. 224 (1998).

4 See United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

2 in contravention of a rem and order issued after the conviction.

Montoya was deported in November 1999; he was placed on deferred

adjudication for the robbery in August 2000 and was adjudicated

guilty in February 2002. Accordingly, he was not deported after

the felo ny and he did not remain in the United States in

contravention of a remand order issued after the conviction. As

the government concedes, these circumstances make Montoya

ineligible for the 16-level enhancement and hi s sentence

constitutes plain error. 1 Consequently, the sentence imposed by

the district court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for

resentencing.

Montoya also asserts for the first time on appeal that 8

U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New

Jersey

. 2 In light of the recommended remand, this issue is

arguably moot. Moreover, as Montoya concedes, his argument is

foreclosed by Almenda rez-Torres v. United States

, 3 but he raises

the issue to preserve it for Su p reme Court review. 4 The judgment

of the district court is AFFIRMED as to this ground.
Joseph BUTLER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3953

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Larry D. JONES, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-8348.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6397

MY’KA EL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

R. REESE, Officer,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT; M. SULLIVAN, 

Officer; S. SELOGY, Officer; FNU MEYERS, Officer; FNU AGAPE, Officer; K. 

S. KODAD, Officer; FNU ISSAC, Officer; FNU AIRTONE, Lieutenant; 

S. MOBLEY; T. MOORE; T. WILSON; J. FLETCHER, Officer; J. PARKER; P. 

MOORE; L.B. DIGGS; B. BUTLER; NURSE FNU GREEN, Sergeant; M. W. 

WOMBLE; M. T. RETORT; B. SCAREY; T. CASTANO; FNU STOUTS, 

Sergeant; R. MONROE; J. H. FRISON; R. BURNETT; BRADON JOLLY, North 

Carolina State Trooper; W. L. CANTER; COOPER JERRELL, Mecklenburg 

County Sheriff; FNU EASON; FNU STREET, Sergeant; FNU GANT, Sergeant; 

FNU HOOD, Officer; R. CHAPMAN, Mecklenburg County Magistrate,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cv-00051-RJC-DCK)

Submitted: July 27, 2017 Decided: August 1, 2017
2

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

My’Ka El, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Edward Peterson, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

My’Ka El appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for the 

appointment of counsel and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. El v. Reese, 3:16-cv-00051-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. 

Aug 18, 2016 & Feb. 28, 2017). We deny El’s motion seeking a restraining order and the 

appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Javier GUTIERREZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9334.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Peggy BLIZZARD, petitioner, v. MARION TECHNICAL COLLEGE, et al.

No. 12-1166.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
什麼是�型糖尿病?

當您的身體不能很好地製造或使用胰島素時,就會發生�型糖尿病,

從而導致高血糖水平。 

關於健康平權的更多信息,請訪問 www.fda.gov/healthequity。 

血壓正常 均衡的飲食 體重管理 積極的生活方式

降低您患�型糖尿病的風險 

疲勞度增加

口渴和排尿增加 飢餓感增加 視力模糊

不癒合的潰瘍 不明原因的體重減輕

症狀往往發展緩慢,可能很輕微。

許多人沒有任何症狀。

�型糖尿病最常發生在中年和老年人身上,但可

以在任何年齡段發病。 

您是否

知道 ?

 約�/�� 的成年

人患有�型糖尿病 

不吸煙 
糖尿病和老年人 

當您的身體不能很好地製造或使用胰島素時,就會發生�型糖尿病,

從而導致高血糖水平。 

關於健康平權的更多信息,請訪問 www.fda.gov/healthequity。 

飲食健康 

不吸煙 控制您的血糖

定期參加運動 控制您的血壓 

按規定服用藥物 

如果您有糖尿病,要保持您的腎臟健康。

��歲以上的人中有

四分之一患有糖尿病。

老年人有最高比例

與糖尿病有關的晚期

腎臟疾病。當您的腎臟

開始衰竭,您可能需要

進行透析(清除體內的

廢物和多餘的液體)或

腎臟移植。 

94 毫克
Cedric DAVIS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-7648.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.
----

|   | (1) | The      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period      ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the      requirements of Sections 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 results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/ Lisa K. Vansickle                                                                 |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |            Lisa K. Vansickle                                 |
|   |   |            Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   |            (Principal Financial and AccountingOfficer)       |

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kenneth J. WILLIAMS, Appellant.

No. 03-3349.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 3, 2004.

Decided May 6, 2004.

Michelle J. Oldham, Lynnett M. Wagner, Lincoln, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas R. Lamb, Anderson & Creager, Lincoln, NE, for Defendant-Appellant.

Kenneth J. Williams, El Reno, OK, pro se.

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After Kenneth Williams pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the district court1 sentenced him to concurrent terms of 188 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On the government’s subsequent Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion, the district court reduced Williams’s sentence to 110 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Williams argues that the district court abused its discretion in not granting a more generous reduction, because he provided significant assistance in investigating or prosecuting others.

We have no jurisdiction to review the extent of the district court’s departure in these circumstances. *See United States v. Coppedge,*135 F.3d 598, 599 (8th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (challenge to extent of district court’s departure upon government’s Rule 35(b) motion is unreviewable).

We thus dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

1

. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
更年期障害とホルモン

よくある質問

閉経(更年期)とは、なんですか? 

閉経(更年期)とは、生理が止るという、女性の一生で正常で自

然な出来事です。そのため、更年期のことを「人生の折り返し地

点」または「ターニングポイント」と呼ぶ人もいます。閉経期に

は、女性の体が生成するホルモンであるエストロゲンとプロゲ

ステロンが徐々に少なくなります。これは多くの女性で、45歳か

ら55歳の間に起こります。女性が12ヶ月連続で生理が無くなっ

たときに、「閉経した」と言います。

更年期障害の症状には、どんなものがあり

ますか? 

女性はいつか、生理が止まる更年期を迎えます。症状がまった

く無い人もいますが、閉経に近づくにつれて以下の症状が起

きることがあります:

• 生理の変化	—	生理の間の日数や、生理分泌物量が変わる

ことがあります。

• 火照る(「顔が赤くなる」)—	顔、首、または胸が暖かくなり、

汗をかくときもかかないときもあります。

• 寝汗をかき、それが睡眠不足や疲労感、ストレス、緊張感を

引き起こすことがあります。

• 膣の変化	—	膣内が乾いて薄くなり、セックスが苦痛になる

ことがあります。

• 骨密度が低くなり、それが身長の低下や骨折(骨粗鬆症)の

原因になることがあります。

更年期障害の症状に対する治療が必要

になるのは、どういう場合ですか?

• 前述の症状の多くが、治療をしなくとも時間とともに消える

女性もいます。

• 症状を軽減するためと、骨量の減少を防ぐために、治療を

選ぶ女性もいます。ホルモン療法ではエストロゲン単独、

またはエストロゲンとプロゲスチンとの併用(子宮のある

女性の場合)を、処方されます。

更年期障害治療でホルモン療法とは、ど

のようなものですか?

更年期にホルモンレベルが低いと、顔や身体が火照り、膣内

が乾燥し、骨が弱くなることがあります。これらの症状を和らげ

るために、女性はエストロゲン、またはエストロゲンとプロゲ

スチン(別のホルモン)との併用を処方されることがあります。

他の処方薬と同様に、ホルモン療法には利点とリスクがありま

す。ホルモン療法については、医師、看護師、または薬剤師に

よく相談してください。ホルモン療法を受けることに決めた場

合には、効果のある最低用量で服用してください。また、でき

るだけ必要最小限の期間のみ、ホルモン剤を服用するように

してください。

更年期障害治療にホルモン療法を使う利

点は、何ですか?

• ホルモン療法は、火照り、寝汗、膣内の乾燥、または性交疼

痛症(セックスに伴う痛み)を和らげるのに役立つことがあ

ります。

• ホルモン療法は、簡単に骨折しやすい薄くてもろい骨(骨

粗鬆症)になるのを予防する効果もあります。

ホルモン療法のリスクは、何ですか?

ホルモン療法によって、血栓、心臓発作、脳梗塞、乳がん、また

は胆嚢疾患を発症する確率が高くなる場合があります。エスト

ロゲンは、子宮内膜がんになる確率を高めます。プロゲスチン

を併用すると、そのリスクを下げることができます。	

更年期障害治療にホルモン療法を受けてはい

けない人は、どういう人ですか?

以下の女性はホルモン療法を受けないでください:

• 	妊娠している可能性のある人。

•		膣から出血がある人。

•		特定の種類のがんを患っている人。

•		脳梗塞または心臓発作を起こしたことがある人。

•		血栓が発生したことがある人。

•		肝臓に疾患がある人。
もっと詳しく知りたい人は:FDA婦人保健部

www.fda.gov/menopause

2021

更年期障害の症状の治療にはホル

ン療法をどのくらいの期間、受ける

要がありますか?

• 医師、看護師、または薬剤師とよく相談してください。

• FDAが認可した更年期障害治療用のホルモンは数多くある

ため、更年期障害の症状の治療は医師と相談して決める必

要があります。

更年期障害の治療に服用するホルモンの

形態で違いはありますか?

はい。ホルモン剤に関しては、FDA承認済みの薬を服用するこ

とをFDAは推奨しています。FDA承認済みのホルモン療法は、

安全性と有効性について検証済みです。

人工合成された「生物学的同一ホルモン」

は、FDAが承認した更年期障害用のホル

モン療法よりも安全かつ効果的ですか?

「生物学的同一ホルモン(bioidentical	hormones)」と呼ばれ

る多くの市販製品は人工合成ホルモンであり、FDAの承認を受

けていません。FDAは人工的に合成された「生物学的同一ホル

モン」が安全で効果的であるかどうか、あるいはFDA承認済み

のホルモン療法よりも安全かつ効果的であるか、という検証結

果を把握していません。

FDAは、女性が閉経前に妊娠可能な年齢で自然に作るホルモ

ンと同一のホルモンを成分として含む薬を、承認済みです。	

エストリオールというホルモンは、エストロ

ゲンより安全ですか?

FDAは、エストリオールを含む薬が安全で効果的である、または

「より安全な形のエストロゲンである」というデータの存在を

確認していません。FDAが承認済みの薬でエストリオールを含

む薬は、ありません。エストリオールを含む市販薬は人工合成

薬であり、FDAの承認を受けていません。		

FDAは更年期障害用に他の治療法を承認

していますか?

はい。2013年にFDAは以下の治療法を承認しました:

• 更年期障害に伴う中等度から重度の火照りに対する非ホル

モン療法。

• 更年期障害に伴う膣の変化による、中等度から重度の性交

疼痛症(セックスに伴う痛み)を治療する薬。

ハーブや他の天然サプリメントは、更年期

障害の治療に役立ちますか?

現時点では、ハーブやその他の天然サプリメントが更年期障害

に有効であるかとか、安全であるかとか、ということに関する情

報は、FDAは持っていません。

更年期障害とホルモン

骨がもろくなることを予防するためだけにエスト

ロゲンを服用すべきですか?

それは可能ですが、他にも骨粗鬆症専用の薬があり、薬以外

の治療法もあります。詳しくは、医師に相談してください。

心臓を守ったり、脳梗塞を予防したりするために

ホルモン療法を受ける必要がありますか?

いいえ。ホルモン療法は、心臓発作や脳梗塞を予防するため

には使わないでください。

認知症やアルツハイマー病を予防するためにホ

ルモン療法を受ける必要がありますか?

いいえ。ホルモン療法は、認知症やアルツハイマー病を予防

するためには使わないでください。

ホルモンは老化やしわを防ぎますか、また、性欲

を高めますか?

ホルモン療法が老化やしわを防ぎ、性欲を高める、という研究

結果は、発表されていません。

更年期障害とホルモン	(JAPANESE)
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;

OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO

TRUCKING LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER RE RESPONSES 

TO LETTERS

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ précis letters requesting permission to file motions

for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 1296, 1300–01). The parties may respond to each others’

letters by AUGUST 24 AT NOON.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1308 Filed 08/22/17 Page 1 of 1
Mary RUFFIN, petitioner, v. HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

No. 12-7704.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Dwayne WHEELER, petitioner, v. Martin BITER, Acting Warden.

No. 12-9204.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Laura GALLOWAY and David Galloway, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. L. A. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, n/a/a Fitness International LLC and Keiser Corporation, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1554

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 23, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES 

Date: 4/6/17 Time: 1 hour 18 minutes Judge: WILLIAM ALSUP 

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Case Name: Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. 

Deputy Clerk: Dawn Logan Court Reporter: JoAnn Bryce 

Attorney for Plaintiff: Charles Verhoeven; Melissa Baily; Jordan Jaffe 

Attorney for Defendant: Arturo Gonzalez; Karen Dunn 

Attorney for Non-Party: Miles Ehrlich; Ismail Ramsey

 

PROCEEDINGS 

Motion to Intervene (dkt #151) - Granted 

Motion for Modification (dkt #147) - Taken Under Submission 

PRETRIAL SCHEDULE: 

Non-Party shall submit an unredacted version of a log with highlighted proposed redactions. 

They shall provide plaintiff with a redacted version of the same document. 

Defendant is in agreement with John Cooper being appointed as a Special Master. Plaintiff shall 

advise the Court by tomorrow whether they agree. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 167 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:12-CR-86

)

TROY A. DITIWAY )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on July 26, 2013, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the single-count Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 26th day of July, 2013.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2