alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Fritz BLUMENBERG, Defendant-Appellant, John C. LEE, Christian T. Viertel, Defendants.

No. 03-1343.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 13, 2004.

Edna Ball Axelrod, South Orange, NJ, for Appellant.

Joshua A. Goldberg, Assistant United States Attorney (Adam B. Siegel, Assistant United States Attorney, and David N. Kelley, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, on the brief), United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee, of counsel.

PRESENT: MESKILL, LEVAL and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

In this sentencing-only appeal, defendant Fritz Blumenberg, who pleaded guilty to charges of mail and wire fraud, conspiracy thereto, and subscribing to and filing false tax returns, contends that he is entitled to a downward departure for diminished mental capacity, pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines § 5K2.13 (1995),* larger than the two-level departure granted by District Court.

Having reviewed the record and considered the arguments of the parties, we conclude that, in the circumstances presented here, there was no error in the decision of the District Court. District courts have wide discretion in determining whether and to what extent to downwardly depart, *see, e.g., United States v. Lawal,*17 F.3d 560, 562 (2d Cir.1994), and the extent to which the Court departed in this case was clearly within that discretion. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

*

 In 1995, § 5K2.13 provided:

> If the defendant committed a non-violent offense while suffering from significantly reduced mental capacity not resulting from voluntary use of drugs or other intoxicants, a lower sentence may be warranted to re-fleet the extent to which reduced mental capacity contributed to the commission of the offense, provided that the defendant’s criminal history does not indicate a need for incarceration to protect the public.
case 2:13-cv-00115-RL-JEM document 1 filed 02/25/13 page 1 of 3
case 2:13-cv-00115-RL-JEM document 1 filed 02/25/13 page 2 of 3
case 2:13-cv-00115-RL-JEM document 1 filed 02/25/13 page 3 of 3
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00023-CV

L. A. and T. A., Appellants

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY 

NO. 298,086-B, THE HONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellants L. A. and T. A. filed their notice of appeal on January 7, 2020. The 

appellate record was complete January 17, 2020, making appellants’ brief due February 6, 2020.

On February 5, 2020, counsel for appellants filed a motion for extension of time to file

appellants’ brief.

The rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals 

from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days 

for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this Court’s leeway in granting 

extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion and order Natalie N. Fowler to file 

appellants’ brief no later than February 26, 2020. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel 

may be required to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on February 11, 2020.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,015,275
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,254,788
<ALLOWANCES>                                   561,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,399,249
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,012,024
<PP&E>                                      15,803,835
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,618,588
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,868,149
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,723,803
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,500,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,778
<OTHER-SE>                                   (455,170)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,868,149
<SALES>                                     38,217,632
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,217,632
<CGS>                                       29,999,634
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,999,634
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            20,883,603
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,419,221
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (14,084,826)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   169,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (14,041,791)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                346,581
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (13,695,210)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.88)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Fushi
Copperweld, Inc. (the "Company"), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of his knowledge:





(1) The
Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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.





August 9,
2010





/s/ Li FuLi
      FuChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)/s/ Wenbing Christopher
WangWenbing
      Christopher WangInterim
      Chief Financial Officer(Interim
      Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Fushi Copperweld, Inc. and will be retained by Fushi Copperweld, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-1957

Lower Tribunal No. 2020-SC-054204

_____________________________

DWAIN M. HALE,

Appellant, 

v.

JOSAM PRODUCTS, INC., and JOSAM FRAME & ALIGNMENT,

Appellees.

_____________________________

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the County Court for Orange County.

Brian S. Sandor, Judge.

May 14, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, C.J., and MIZE and GANNAM, JJ., concur.

Dwain M. Hale, Clermont, pro se. 

Josam Products, Inc., Orlando, pro se. 

No Appearance for Appellee, Josam Frame & Alignment. 

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
June 10, 2022 

Dear Colleagues: 

The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA), Office of Enforcement 

and Import Operations (OEIO) 90-day pilot project to conduct drug entry admissibility reviews on a 

national basis and expanded staffing to 24/7shift coverage will conclude on June 11, 2022. 

The Nationalized Drug Entry Review Pilot has been running since March 13, 2022, during which time we 

conducted entry admissibility reviews on a national basis versus the current port-by-port entry review 

approach. We also utilized entry review staff over multiple time zones allowing us to expand our drug 

entry review coverage times. 

FDA will be assessing data from the pilot to determine any benefits gained from a national drug entry 

review approach; the potential to automate portions of the entry review process; allowing entry 

reviewers more time to focus on potentially higher violation products; and efficiencies gained from 

timely receipt of associated documentation. 

The contact information established for this pilot will be shut down, including the ERPilot@fda.hhs.gov 

email, and phone numbers 833-312-3237 and 301-796-2249. 

For drug import questions, please contact the OEIO divisions (see Import Offices and Ports of Entry | 

FDA). 

Data, information, and lessons learned from the pilot will be reviewed and analyzed to determine 

improvements in the entry review program. 

Sincerely, 

Dan R. Solis 

Assistant Commissioner for Import Operations
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

537 

KA 13-01617 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, SCONIERS, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TIMOTHY INGRAM, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (BRADLEY E. KEEM OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

VALERIE G. GARDNER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PENN YAN (MEGAN P. DADD OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Yates County Court (W. Patrick

Falvey, J.), rendered June 18, 2013. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while ability impaired

by drugs, driving while ability impaired by the combined influence of

drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs, aggravated unlicensed

operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and criminal mischief

in the fourth degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, driving while ability impaired

by the combined influence of drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs

as a class E felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [4-a]; 1193 [1]

[c] [i]). Inasmuch as defendant entered a plea of guilty, he

“forfeited his present challenge to County Court’s Sandoval ruling”

(People v Condes, 23 AD3d 1149, 1150, lv denied 6 NY3d 774; see People

v Johnson, 104 AD3d 705, 706). Contrary to defendant’s contention,

the plea colloquy demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily and

intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Kosty, 122 AD3d

1408, 1408, lv denied 24 NY3d 1220; People v Estevez-Santos, 114 AD3d

1174, 1175, lv denied 23 NY3d 1019). Although defendant’s further

contention that his plea was not voluntarily, knowingly, and

intelligently entered because he gave inconsistent information

concerning when he ingested the drugs on the day of the incident

survives his waiver of the right to appeal, he failed to preserve that

contention for our review (see People v Davis, 45 AD3d 1357,

1357-1358, lv denied 9 NY3d 1005). In any event, defendant’s

contention lacks merit. After defendant indicated that he took the

drugs in the morning, well before this accident, the court asked him

further questions about the drugs he took and when he took them. In
-2- 537 

KA 13-01617 

response, defendant admitted that he ingested several drugs closer to

the time that he operated the vehicle, and he admitted that he was

under the influence of those drugs when he drove the vehicle off the

road and struck a house (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [4-a]). 

Thus, “the court conducted an inquiry that ‘was sufficient to ensure

that the plea was voluntary’ ” (People v Zuliani, 68 AD3d 1731, 1732,

lv denied 14 NY3d 894). 

Finally, defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal

encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People

v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737). 

Entered: May 1, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
(GikexX) gar ag Va ala et a4
feat A arey?

i hal)

H MT Te Hr Yo

da amg die eld ey a or ae ora al aiet?

eA al Hl Yrat we | oa 3g
frie ef da ay we Cl on



(GikexX) gar ag Va ala et a4
feat A arey?

da amg die eld ey a or ae ora al aiet?
eA al Hl Yrat we | oa 3g

dene ef da ae WW al Wl om
:


(GikexX) gar ag Va ala et a4
feat A arey?

da amg die eld ey a or ae ora al aiet?
eA al Hl Yrat we | oa 3g

dene ef da ae WW al Wl om
:


(GikexX) gar ag Va ala et a4
feat A arey?

da amg die eld ey a or ae ora al aiet?
eA al Hl Yrat we | oa 3g

dene ef da ae WW al Wl om
:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

LEROY MOORMAN, 

Petitioner, 

 Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-908-JVB

v.

SUPERINTENDENT, 

Respondent. 

OPINION AND ORDER

Leroy Moorman filed a pro se habeas corpus petition challenging his prison disciplinary

hearing which was held at the Plainfield Correctional Facility on December 26, 2012. At that

hearing the Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of Assault on Staff in violation

of A-117 under cause number IYC 12-12-158. He was sanctioned with the loss of 180 days

earned credit time and demoted to Credit Class 2. The Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss

arguing that “the conviction and sanctions . . . have been vacated [therefore] there is no longer a

case or controversy for this Court to adjudicate . . ..” However, the attached exhibit from the

Legal Services Division of the Indiana Department of Correction makes no mention of either the

conviction nor the sanctions having been vacated. It only says that the case was sent back for a

rehearing. Nevertheless, Moorman has not disputed that the conviction was vacated and the lost

time restored. Therefore the court will accept counsel’s representations on this point even though

there is no evidence in the record which directly supports those assertions. Thus, the motion (DE

7) is GRANTED and the case is ordered DISMISSED because there is no case or controversy to

adjudicate. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003). 

case 3:13-cv-00908-JVB document 8 filed 03/13/14 page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED on March 13, 2014.

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

case 3:13-cv-00908-JVB document 8 filed 03/13/14 page 2 of 2
[Crowe Logo] REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM Audit Committee Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC West Palm Beach, Florida We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying report "Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria", that Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the Residential Mortgage Loans Platform (the "Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria 1122(1)(iii) and 1122(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. The Platform consists of the asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management in Appendix B of Management's Report. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about the Company's compliance based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight  Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstance s. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities constituting the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company's servicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. In our opinion, managements assertion referred to above is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria. /s/ Crowe Chizek and Company LLC Crowe Chizek and Company LLC Fort Lauderdale, Florida March 6, 2008
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Civil Case No. 3:13-cv-00163-TLS-CAN

)

v. )

)

HAI NGUYEN, )

)

Defendant. )

)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

WITHIN WHICH TO SERVE EXPERT WITNESS REPORTS

Plaintiff, Malibu Media, LLC, moves for entry of an order extending the time within

which it has to serve its Expert Witness Reports on Defendant, and states:

1. Pursuant to this Court’s Order entered on September 13, 2013 [CM/ECF 18],

Plaintiff is required to disclose its experts and serve its experts’ reports on Defendant by no later

than today, December 12, 2013.

2. Plaintiff served its Expert Witness List and Partial Report on Defendant today,

December 12, 2013. However, Plaintiff’s expert is unable to prepare his report because

Plaintiff’s has yet to request a copy of Defendant’s hard drive. Plaintiff will do so in its initial

discovery requests, which are being served on Defendant today.

3. As such, Plaintiff requires an extension of at least sixty (60) days within which its

expert may review any information produced by Defendant in response to the discovery requests,

and complete his report.

4. This request is made in good faith and not made for the purpose of undue delay.

case 3:13-cv-00163-TLS-CAN document 19 filed 12/12/13 page 1 of 2
2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the time within which it must serve its

expert reports on Defendant be extended by sixty (60) days, or until February 10, 2014. 

Dated: December 12, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

NICOLETTI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

By: /s/ Paul J. Nicoletti

Paul J. Nicoletti, Esq. (P44419)

36880 Woodward Ave, Suite 100

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304

Tel: (248) 203-7800

Fax: (248) 203-7801

E-Fax: (248) 928-7051

Email: paul@nicoletti-associates.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 12, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing document

with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being

served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in

the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by

CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized

to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

SERVICE LIST

Hai Nguyen

315 15th Street

Logansport, IN 46947

longhai@nyc.com

Pro se

By: /s/ Paul J. Nicoletti

case 3:13-cv-00163-TLS-CAN document 19 filed 12/12/13 page 2 of 2
Raymond MITCHELL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-8807.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11638]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Geological Survey


Technology Transfer Act of 1986

AGENCY: United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Cooperative Research and Development 
Agreement (CRADA).

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

SUMMARY: The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is entering into a 
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with The 
University of Maryland at College Park (UMCP). The purpose of the CRADA 
is to jointly develop more efficient and effective techniques for the 
transfer of USGS technology to industry within the State of Maryland. 
Any other organizations interested in pursuing the possibility of a 
CRADA with the USGS for similar kinds of activities should contact the 
USGS.

ADDRESSES: Inquiries may be addressed to Dr. A. Inderbitzen, Office of 
the Director, U.S. Geological Survey, 104 National Center, 12201 
Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 22092, Telephone (703) 648-4450, 
FAX (703) 648-5470, E-Mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f2e26212b2a3d2d262f3d262b28263c2b412a3d413a3c283c41282039">[email protected]</a>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is to meet the USGS requirement 
stipulated in the Survey Manual.

    Dated: May 1, 1995.
Anton L. Inderbitzen,
Office of the Director.
[FR Doc. 95-11638 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-31-M

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 22447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11339]



      

[[Page 22445]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





The President





_______________________________________________________________________



Presidential Determination No. 95-18 of April 21, 1995



Presidential Determination No. 95-19 of April 21, 1995


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / 
Presidential Documents

____________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President  
[[Page 22447]] 

                Presidential Determination No. 95-18 of April 21, 1995

                
Determination Under Section 2(b)(2)(D) of the 
                Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as Amended: People's 
                Republic of China

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                Pursuant to Section 2(b)(2)(D) of the Export-Import 
                Bank Act of 1945, as amended, I determine that it is in 
                the national interest for the Export-Import Bank of the 
                United States to extend a loan in the amount of 
                approximately $237,253,000 to the People's Republic of 
                China in connection with the purchase of U.S. equipment 
                and services for the expansion of a power plant in 
                Dalian, Liaoning Province.

                You are authorized and directed to report this 
                determination to the Congress and publish it in the 
                Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1>><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, April 21, 1995.

[FR Doc. 95-11339
Filed 5-4-95; 9:42 am]
Billing code 4710-10-M