alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered November 19, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00627-CR

DEON REESE EVANS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-28191-U

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s November 8, 2013 “objection” to the record. 

Appellant contends the record is not complete because the clerk’s record does not contain the 

jury charge for punishment, including the sentence assessed. Appellant further asserts that “there 

should be no deadline” for his brief until the record is supplemented. We will treat this 

“objection” as a motion to supplement the record and to extend time to file appellant’s brief. As 

such, we GRANT the motion.

We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the 

date of this order, a supplemental record containing the jury charge for punishment, including the 

punishment assessed.
We ORDER appellant to file his brief within FORTY-FIVE DAYS of the date of this 

order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary 

Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal 

Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
ປັນຫານອນບໍ່ຫຼັບ

ອົງການອາຫານແລະຢາເພື່ອສຸຂະພາບຂອງແມ່ຍິງ

www.fda.gov/womens

ຄວາມຮູ້ພື້ນຖານກ່ຽວກັບການນອນ

ໂດຍທົ່ວໄປແລ້ວ, ຜູ້ໃຫຍ່ຈໍາເປັນຕ້ອງໄດ້ນອນປະມານ 

7-8 ຊົ່ວໂມງໃນແຕ່ລະຄືນ ແຕ່ວ່າບໍ່ແມ່ນທຸກຄົນສິໄດ້

ນອນຫຼັບພຽງພໍຕາມຄວາມຕ້ອງການ

ບາງຄັ້ງທ່ານອາດຈະມີບັນຫາໃນການນອນຫລັບ ເຊິ່ງ

ອາດຈະເປັນສາເຫດມາຈາກ

• ຄວາມຕຶງຄຽດ

•

•

•

• ແສງສະຫວ່າງ ຫລືບໍ່ມີສຽງດັງ

•

ຖ້າທ່ານມີບັນຫາໃນການນອນຫລັບ ຫຼືມີອາການນອນໄມ່

ຫລັບເປັນເວລາຫຼາຍຄືນຕິດຕໍ່ກັນ ທ່ານອາດຈະປະສົບ

ບັນຫາການນອນທີ່ເອີ້ນວ່າ ການນອນຫລັບ

ບາງທ່ານອາດຈະປະສົບບັນຫາການນອນຫລັບຮ້າຍແຮງ 

ກະລຸນາປຶກສາທ່ານຫມໍຂອງທ່ານຖ້າທ່ານມີອາການດັ່ງ

ຕໍ່ໄປນີ້:

•

• ງັດງູຫລືສຽງດັງຄ້າຍຄືຄາງໃນເວລານອນ

•

ຢາທີ່ຊ່ວຍໃຫ້ທ່ານນອນຫຼັບ

ມີຢາຫລາຍຊະນິດທີສາມາດເຮັດໃຫ້ທ່ານນອນຫລັບໄດ້ຫຼື

ສາມາດນອນຫລັບໄດ້ດົນ ທ່ານຈໍາເປັນຕ້ອງມີໃບສັ່ງແພດ

ຈາກທ່ານຫມໍຂອງທ່ານເພື່ອໃຊ້ຢານອນຫລັບບາງຊະນິດ 

ຫຼືທ່ານຍັງສາມາດໃຊ້ຢາທີ່ບໍ່ຕ້ອງການໃບສັ່ງແພດໄດ້

ຢາທີ່ຊື້ຕາມໃບສັ່ງແພ

ຢານອນຫລັບຕາມໃບສັ່ງແພດມີປະສິດທິຜົນດີ ສໍາລັບ

ຫຼາຍໆຄົນ ເຖິງຢ່າງໃດກໍ່ຕາມ ຢາເຫຼົ່ານີ້ສາມາດເຮັດໃຫ້

ເກີດຜົນຂ້າງຄຽງທີ່ຮ້າຍແຮງ

• ປຶກສາກັບທ່ານຫມໍຂອງທ່ານກ່ຽວກັບຄວາມສ່ຽງ

ແລະຜົນປະໂຫຍດທີ່ທ່ານສາມາດຄາດຫວັງຈາກຢາ

ນອນຫລັບ

• ຢານອນຫລັບທີໃຊ້ເພື່ອການນອນໄມ່ຫລັບ; ສາມາດ

ສົ່ງຜົນກະທົບຕໍ່ການຂັບຂີ່ລົດຂອງທ່ານໃນເຊົ້າຕໍ່ມາ

ຫລັງຈາກໃຊ້ຢາ

• ຢານອນຫລັບສາມາດເຮັດໃຫ້ເກີດຜົນຂ້າງຄຽງບາງ

ຢ່າງທີ່ບໍ່ຄ່ອຍດີ, ເຊັ່ນວ່າ: 

- ອາການແພ້ຢາທີ່ຮຸນແຮງ

- ມີອາການບວມຕາມໃບຫນ້າຢ່າງຮຸນແຮງ

- ພຶດຕິກໍາຕ່າງໆເຊັ່ນ: ການໂທລະສັບແລະການ

ກິນເຂົ້າ ມີເພດສໍາພັນຫລືຂັບຂີ່ລົດ ໃນຂະນະທີ່ຍັງບໍ່

ຕື່ນເຕັມທີ

ຢາທີ່ບໍ່ຈໍາເປັນຕ້ອງມີໃບສັ່ງແພດເພື່ອຊື້

ຢາທີ່ບໍ່ຈໍາເປັນຕ້ອງມີໃບສັ່ງແພດເພື່ອຊື້ມັນສາມາດກໍ່ໃຫ້

ເກີດຜົນຂ້າງຄຽງເຊັ່ນກັນກະລຸນາອ່ານ“ປ້າຍຢາ” ເພື່ອ

ຮຽນຮູ້ເພີ່ມເຕີມກ່ຽວກັບຜົນຂ້າງຄຽງຂອງຢານອນຫຼັບທີ່

ບໍ່ແມ່ນຢາຕາມໃບສັ່ງແພດເມື່ອທ່ານຊື້ຢາ
 ເອກະສານນີ້ພັດທະນາໂດຍອົງການອາຫານແລະຢາເພື່ອສຸຂະພາບຂອງແມ່ຍິງ (ຫ້ອງການສາທາລະນະສຸກຂອງອົງການ

ອາຫານແລະຢາ)

ສໍາລັບຂໍ້ມູນເພີ່ມເຕີມກ່ຽວກັບສຸຂະພາບຂອງແມ່ຍິງ, ກະລຸນາຢ້ຽມຊົມ 

www.fda.gov/womens

2021

ປັນຫານອນບໍ່ຫຼັບ

ຄໍາແນະນໍາສໍາ ລບການນອນຫຼັບທີ່ດີກວ່າ

ການປ່ຽນແປງບາງຢ່າງໃນນິໄສການນອນຂອງທ່ານອາດຈະຊ່ວຍໃຫ້ທ່ານນອນຫຼັບໄດ້ດີ

• ເຂົ້ານອນແລະຕື່ນນອນໃນເວລາດຽວກັນທຸກໆມື້

• ນອນຢູ່ໃນຫ້ອງມືດແລະງຽບ

• ຫລີກລ້ຽງການດື່ມຄາເຟອີນແລະສານນິໂຄຕິນ

• ຢ່າດື່ມເຄື່ອງດື່ມມຶນເມົາກ່ອນເຂົ້ານອນ

• ເຮັດກິດຈະກໍາທີ່ຊ່ວຍໃຫ້ທ່ານຜ່ອນຄາຍກ່ອນເຂົ້ານອນ

• ຢ່າອອກກໍາລັງກາຍກ່ອນເຂົ້ານອນ

• ຢ່າພັກຜ່ອນໃນເວລາກາງເວັນຫຼັງຈາກ 3 ໂມງແລງ

• ຢ່າກິນອາຫານຂະຫນາດໃຫຍ່ກ່ອນເຂົ້ານອນ

ປຶກສາຜູ້ໃຫ້ບໍລິການດ້ານສຸຂະພາບຂອງທ່ານ. ຖ້າທ່ານມີບັນຫາໃນການນອນຫລັບໃນ

ຕອນກາງຄືນເກືອບທຸກໆຄືນ ເປັນເວລາຫຼາຍກວ່າ 2 ອາທິດຕິດຕໍ່ກັນ

ປັນຫານອນບໍ່ຫຼັບ (LAOTIAN)
case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 1 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 2 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 3 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 4 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 5 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 6 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 7 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 8 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 9 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 10 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 11 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 12 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 13 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 14 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 15 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 16 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 17 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 18 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 19 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 20 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 21 of 22

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 114   filed 12/03/14   page 22 of 22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-11

)

RONALD C. BODLEY )

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 September 27, 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 27th day of September, 2013.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12383]



[[Page 26917]]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


Flight Service Station at Sheridan, Wyoming; Closing

    Notice is hereby given that on or about June 7, 1995, the flight 
service station at Sheridan, Wyoming, will be closed. Services to the 
aviation public formerly provided by this facility will be provided by 
the automated flight service station in Casper, Wyoming. This 
information will be reflected in the FAA Organization Statement the 
next time it is issued. Sec. 313(a) of Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as 
amended, 72 Stat. 752; 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a).

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 5, 1994.
Frederick M. Isaac,
Regional Administrator, Northwest Mountain Region.
[FR Doc. 95-12383 Filed 5-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       9
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<CASH>                                  37,163
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                       170,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>            324,820
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                   4,045
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                     4,048
<LOANS>                                994,542
<ALLOWANCE>                             (9,061)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1,574,988
<DEPOSITS>                             924,781
<SHORT-TERM>                           342,086
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                     62,536
<LONG-TERM>                             73,809
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                28,606
<OTHER-SE>                             143,170
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>       1,574,988
<INTEREST-LOAN>                         22,202
<INTEREST-INVEST>                        4,010
<INTEREST-OTHER>                         2,029
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                        28,241
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                       8,105
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      12,887
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                   15,354
<LOAN-LOSSES>                              281
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                          13
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                         11,833
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          7,985
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>               7,985
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                             5,618
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0.54
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                            4.29
<LOANS-NON>                              2,025
<LOANS-PAST>                             1,620
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                           867
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                         13,953
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                         9,010
<CHARGE-OFFS>                              275
<RECOVERIES>                                45
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                        9,061
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                     9,061
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                          0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      0

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

No. 22-20525

____________

Marcus Anderson; Reed Clark, 

Plaintiffs—Appellees,

versus

Christopher Diaz, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CV-4920

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

AFFIRMED. Appellant has not identified any reversible error of law 

with the district court’s denial of summary judgment. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 8, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-20525 Document: 00516995636 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

SHERBERT M. FORTSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-315 PS

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Sherbert M. Fortson, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition attempting to obtain

his immediate release from prison for a parole violation. He argues that it was wrong for the

Indiana Parole Board to have waited three years after he violated his parole to revoke his parole

and send him back to prison. He also argues that the Parole Board was wrong to have

subsequently denied him release on parole. 

However, before I can consider a habeas corpus petition from a person in State custody,

the petitioner must have previously presented his claims to the State courts. “This means that the

petitioner must raise the issue at each and every level in the state court system, including levels

at which review is discretionary rather than mandatory.” Lewis v. Sternes, 390 F.3d 1019,

1025-1026 (7th Cir. 2004). 

There are two possible methods for challenging a parole revocation in Indiana: by filing a

post-conviction relief petition, Receveur v. Buss, 919 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), or by

filing a state habeas corpus petition if the inmate is seeking immediate release. Lawson v. State,

845 N.E.2d 185, 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Furthermore, if a state habeas corpus petition is

improperly filed, it will be converted to a post-conviction petition. Hardley v. State, 893 N.E.2d

case 3:13-cv-00315-PPS document 2 filed 05/06/13 page 1 of 2
740, 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) and Ward v. Ind. Parole Bd., 805 N.E.2d 893 (2004). Here,

Fortson says that he has not presented either of his claims to any State court in any proceeding.

Therefore he has not exhausted his State court remedies, and I must dismiss this case without

prejudice so that he can exhaust these claims in the State courts. If, after he has ultimately

presented his claims to the Indiana Supreme Court, he has not yet obtained relief, then he may

return to this court and file a new habeas corpus petition. 

For the foregoing reasons, this federal habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: May 6, 2013. s/ Philip P. Simon

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

case 3:13-cv-00315-PPS document 2 filed 05/06/13 page 2 of 2
November 3, 2011

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RMS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, LLC, ASSIGNEE OF ENCORE CREDIT 

CORPORATION, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00232-CV V.

A. M. MOLINA AKA ARLETTA MOLINA, Appellee

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, A. M. MOLINA 

AKA ARLETTA MOLINA, signed August 19, 2010, was heard on the transcript of the 

record. We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore order 

the judgment of the court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for proceedings 

in accordance with the court's opinion.

We order appellee, A. M. MOLINA AKA ARLETTA MOLINA, to pay all costs 

incurred in this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:12-CR-12-JTM-PRC

 )

FLETCHER PETERSON, )

Defendant. ) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY BY DEFENDANT FLETCHER PETERSON

TO: THE HONORABLE JAMES T. MOODY, JUDGE,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant Fletcher Peterson’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came for hearing before Magistrate Judge Paul R.

Cherry, on March 28, 2012, with the consent of Defendant Fletcher Peterson, counsel for Defendant

Desmond Peterson, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant Fletcher Peterson’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 Defendant Fletcher Peterson under

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

and of counsel for Defendant Fletcher Peterson,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant Fletcher Peterson understands the nature of the charges against him to which

the plea is offered;

(2) that Defendant Fletcher Peterson 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 Defendant Fletcher Peterson understands what the maximum possible sentence is,

including the effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant Fletcher Peterson 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 Defendant Fletcher Peterson has been knowingly and voluntarily

made and is not the result of force or threats or of promises;

(5) that Defendant Fletcher Peterson is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant Fletcher Peterson 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 Defendant Fletcher Peterson’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Fletcher Peterson’s plea of guilty to the offense charged

in Count 1 of the Indictment and that Defendant Fletcher Peterson be adjudged guilty of the offense

charged in Count 1 of the Indictment and have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been

ordered. Should this Report and Recommendation be accepted and Fletcher Peterson be adjudged

guilty, a sentencing date before Judge James T. Moody will be set by separate order. Objections to the

Findings and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within ten (10) days. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B).

So ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2012.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

Honorable James T. Moody
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT INDIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Civil Case No.: 4:13-cv-00027-JD-JEM

)

v. )

)

JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address )

98.226.144.247, )

)

Defendant. )

)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ITS NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL UNDER SEAL

Plaintiff, Malibu Media, LLC (“Plaintiff”), moves for entry of an order to file its Notice 

of Settlement and Voluntary Dismissal (“Dismissal”) under seal and states:

1. On September 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed its Dismissal under seal. See CM/ECF 23.

2. Pursuant to the Court’s Order at CM/ECF 24 and N.D. Ind. L.R. 5-3(a), Plaintiff 

files this motion to seal its Dismissal and sincerely apologizes to the Court for its previous error 

of failing to contemporaneously file a motion to seal with its Dismissal. 

3. Plaintiff filed its Dismissal under seal because it contained Defendant’s email 

address in the Proof of Service. 

4. Pursuant to the Court’s protective order, Plaintiff is required to file certain 

documents under seal in order to protect the Defendant’s identity. See CM/ECF 7 (requiring 

Plaintiff to file its subpoena response and proof of service under seal). Further, pursuant to the 

Court’s protective order, Plaintiff is not allowed to publically identify Defendant by name. Id. 

5. Due to the sensitive nature of this case, and out of an abundance of caution, 

Plaintiff seeks leave to file its Dismissal under seal because it contains Defendant’s email 

case 4:13-cv-00027-JD-JEM document 25 filed 09/12/13 page 1 of 2
2

address in the proof of service. While this email address may not specifically list Defendant’s 

name, it may be used to identify and/or otherwise contact Defendant. 

6. Good cause exists to grant this motion.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court permit Plaintiff to file its 

Dismissal under seal. 

Dated: September 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 September 12, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF and that service was perfected on all counsel of 

record and interested parties through this system. 

By: /s/ Paul J. Nicoletti

 

case 4:13-cv-00027-JD-JEM document 25 filed 09/12/13 page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Subramanian Sundaresh, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Adaptec, Inc. for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 (the "Form 10-Q"), that the
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Adaptec, Inc. for the quarterly periods covered by the Form 10-Q.

|Date: February 6, 2008 | By: /s/ SUBRAMANIAN SUNDARESH
                Subramanian SundareshChief Executive Officer
|---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I, Christopher O'Meara, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the Form 10-Q, that the Form 10-Q
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Adaptec, Inc. for the periods covered by the Form 10-Q.

|Date: February 6, 2008 | By: /s/ CHRISTOPHER O'MEARA
                Christopher O'MearaChief Financial Officer
|---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:13-CR-63-TLS 

)

RAUL RESENDIZ )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 26], filed on February 6, 2014. The Defendant has waived objection to

the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 26] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 1 of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and

the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate

order.

SO ORDERED on February 25, 2014.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
H.M., petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al.

No. 12-8843.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.