alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000001
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000002
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000003
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000004
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000005
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000006
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000007
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000008
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000009
 

OC-MAY23-POSTING-000010
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000011
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000012
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000013
 

 

OC-MAY23-POSTING-000014
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000015
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000016
 

 

OC-MAY23-POSTING-000017
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000018
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000019
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000020
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000021
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000022
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000023
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000024
From: Zelenko Family 

Sent: 4/5/2020 3:44:59 PM 

To: Hahn, Stephen [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group 

(FYDI BO HF 23SPDL T)/ cn=Recip ients/ en =a0afac0cfa3c4b98913833e38a036e9f-Stephen. Ha h] 

Subject: Fwd: Dr. Zelenko protocol and outcome date 

Attachments: 315-43.pdf; outcomes date 3_15 - 4_3 (1).pdf; Coronas letter.pdf 

Begin forwarded message: 

From: vladimir zelenko 

Subject: Dr. Zelenko protocol and outcome date 

Date: April 5, 2020 at I :34:30 PM EDT 

To: Sam Sandowski , , adi Gast , 

Moshe , 

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

OC-MAY23-POSTING-000025
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000026
 

OC-MAY23-POSTING-000027
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000028
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000029
 

 

OC-MAY23-POSTING-000030
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000031
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000032
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000033
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000034
 

 

OC-MAY23-POSTING-000035
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000036
 

OC-MAY23-POSTING-000037
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000038
 

 

OC-MAY23-POSTING-000039
 

 

OC-MAY23-POSTING-000040
 

OC-MAY23-POSTING-000041
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000042
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000043
 

OC-MAY23-POSTING-000044
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000045
 

OC-MAY23-POSTING-000046
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000047
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000048
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000049
OC-MAY23-POSTING-000050
Manuel LOPEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9156.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Ed MOLONEY and Anthony McIntyre, petitioners, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 12-627.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Motion of petitioners to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
#### Daniel SPYCHALSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Katherine SULLIVAN, individually and in her professional capacity, Daniel Furlong, individually and in his professional capacity, Joseph W. Bellacosa, individually and in his professional capacity, St. John’s University School of Law, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-9036.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 25, 2004.

Daniel Spychalsky, Carle Place, NY, for Appellant, pro se.

Jill L. Rosenberg, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (Lisa Swanson, on the brief), New York, NY, for Appellees.

Present: WINTER, STRAUB, and LAY,* Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, sitting by designation.

*791SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Daniel Spychalsky, *pro se,*appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Denis R. Hurley, Judge) entered September 2, 2003, granting defendants-appellees’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing Spychalsky’s complaint. We assume familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues that have been raised for appellate review and affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its August 29, 2003 Memorandum and Order. *See Spychalsky v. Sullivan,*No. 2:01cv0958, 2003 WL 22071602 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2003).
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                      Statement of Chief Financial Officer
       Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


       Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the
undersigned, Richard E. Staedtler, the Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of Castle Energy Corporation, hereby certifies that:

I.     The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the three months ended March
       31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
       13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

II.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
       respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
       Company.

Dated:   May 13, 2005                              /S/RICHARD E. STAEDTLER
      ------------------------------               -----------------------------
                                                   Richard E. Staedtler
                                                   Chief Financial Officer

       A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Castle Energy Corporation and will be retained by Castle Energy
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                           SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                         834
<SECURITIES>                                                   151
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    5
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     3
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 0
<PP&E>                                                           4
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   4
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               1,115
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            0
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                                   (107)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 1,115
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                82
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   58
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 5
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 24
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             24
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    24
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                  .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0
        

</TABLE>
Jamaal R. DIXON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1792

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Gregory JAMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-596

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Tyvaris WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-9284.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1797

JERRY ADAMS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF SUFFOLK, VIRGINIA; STATE OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-99-293-2) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Adams, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Ramona D. Taylor, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Suffolk, Virginia; Lee Melchor Turlington, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on May 24, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on May 25, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Jerry Adams, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Adams v. City of Suffolk , No. CA-99-293-2 (E.D. Va. May 25, 1999). * We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
case 3:13-cv-00071-JD-CAN document 27 filed 01/14/14 page 1 of 2
case 3:13-cv-00071-JD-CAN document 27 filed 01/14/14 page 2 of 2
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-19-00297-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 297th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1080543D

Before Gabriel, Kerr, and Birdwell, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Gabriel

CHARLES CLEVELAND NOWDEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Charles Cleveland Nowden attempts to appeal from the trial court’s 

failure to act on his April 2019 “nunc pro tunc” motion seeking the return of property 

seized pursuant to a 2007 search warrant. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 47.01a. 

This is Nowden’s second attempt to appeal from the trial court’s failure to rule on a 

motion seeking the return of the property seized in 2007. See Nowden v. State, No. 02-

17-00094-CR, 2017 WL 2979830, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 13, 2017, no 

pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). As in that appeal, we informed 

Nowden by letter that it appeared he was not appealing from a final judgment or from 

an otherwise appealable order and notified him that we would dismiss his appeal for 

want of jurisdiction unless he showed grounds for continuing it. See id. at *1; see also 

Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 42.3, 44.3. Nowden has not responded.

Absent a final judgment or an otherwise appealable order, we have no 

jurisdiction over Nowden’s attempted appeal. See, e.g., Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. 

Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012); Nowden, 2017 WL 2979830, at *1–2. Even 

though Nowden’s motion implicated his attempts to recover seized property, which is 

appealable by statute, such an appeal requires an order to invoke our jurisdiction. See 

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 47.01a, 47.12; Nowden, 2017 WL 2979830, at *2. 

The trial court has not signed an order or otherwise acted on Nowden’s motion; thus,

we dismiss Nowden’s attempted appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 

43.2(f).
3

/s/Lee Gabriel

Lee Gabriel

Justice

Delivered: August 15, 2019
John Clarence WALKER, petitioner, v. Rick THALER, Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 12-8822.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

RITA GEISLER and JOHN GEISLER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING 

PHARMACY, INC. d/b/a NEW 

ENGLAND COMPOUNDING CENTER, 

BARRY AND LISA CADDEN, and 

GREGORY CONIGLIARO,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:12-CV-823-RL-CAN

APPEARANCE BY ATTORNEY IN CIVIL CASE

To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record:

Please enter my appearance as counsel in this case for Defendants Barry and Lisa 

Cadden, and Greg Conigliaro.

I certify that I am admitted to practice in this Court.

LEWIS WAGNER LLP

By: /s/ Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo

DINA M. COX, #18590-49

KAMEELAH SHAHEED-DIALLO, #28058-49

ROBERT M. BAKER IV, #25471-49

JANELLE M. KILIES, #30708-49

Attorneys for Defendants 

case 3:12-cv-00823-RL-CAN document 9 filed 02/14/13 page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on February 14, 2013 using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of this filing to the 

following: 

Douglas D. Small

FOLEY & SMALL

1002 E Jefferson Blvd

South Bend IN 46617

Counsel for Plaintiffs

/s/ Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo

KAMEELAH SHAHEED-DIALLO

LEWIS WAGNER, LLP

501 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200

Indianapolis, IN 46202

Phone: (317) 237-0500

FAX: (317) 630-2790

kshaheed-diallo@lewiswagner.com

Q:\NECC\22 - Geisler\Federal Pleadings\appear_ksd_Cadden & Conigliaro.docx

case 3:12-cv-00823-RL-CAN document 9 filed 02/14/13 page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Titan Machinery Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended
January 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Peter J. Christianson, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:
April 15, 2010

/s/ PETER J. CHRISTIANSON Peter J. Christianson President and Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
Jonathan LAUREANO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9256.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
DEFENDANTS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND OTTOMOTTO LLC’S NOTICE OF FILING PHOTOGRAPHS

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

sf-3767417

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 

MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)

MJacobs@mofo.com 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490) 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

ERIC A. TATE (CA SBN 178719) 

ETate@mofo.com 

RUDY Y. KIM (CA SBN 199426) 

RKim@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

KAREN L. DUNN (Pro Hac Vice) 

kdunn@bsfllp.com 

HAMISH P.M. HUME (Pro Hac Vice) 

hhume@bsfllp.com 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington DC 20005 

Telephone: 202.237.2727 

Facsimile: 202.237.6131 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

DEFENDANTS UBER 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND 

OTTOMOTTO LLC’S NOTICE OF 

FILING PHOTOGRAPHS 

Date: May 3, 2017 

Time: 7:30 a.m. 

Ctrm: 8, 19th Floor 

Judge: The Honorable William Alsup 

Trial Date: October 2, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 418 Filed 05/10/17 Page 1 of 2
DEFENDANTS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND OTTOMOTTO LLC’S NOTICE OF FILING PHOTOGRAPHS

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 1

sf-3767417

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 

Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Ottomotto LLC hereby file photographs of the 

components of the Spider LiDAR device that were displayed at the May 3, 2017 hearing on 

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. 

Dated: May 10, 2017 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Esther Kim Chang 

ESTHER KIM CHANG 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO LLC 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 418 Filed 05/10/17 Page 2 of 2
----

|   | (a)    | the annual report on Form 10-K of Lucky Boy Silver Corp. for the year ended May 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|   | (b)    | information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Lucky Boy Silver Corp.                                        |

| /s/ Fortunato Villamagna                                                                                                          |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Fortunato VillamagnaChief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of Indiana

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF 

ATTORNEY INFORMATION

TO: THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND ALL OTHER PARTIES

G I have no pending cases in the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.

X I have pending case(s) in the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.

) 3:12-cv-00474-JTM-CAN

) 3:12-cv-00840-TLS-CAN

) 3:12-cv-00842-PPS-CAN

Pending Case No(s). ) 3:12-cv-00845-WCL-CAN

) 3:12-cv-00844-JTM-CAN

) 3:12-cv-00843-PPS-CAN

) 3:12-cv-00841-JVB-CAN

)

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-3, the undersigned counsel notifies the Clerk=s Office of the following changes:

Previous Information: Current Information:

Name: Douglas A. Mulvaney Douglas A. Mulvaney

Law Firm, Stutsman & Mulvaney Stutsman & Mulvaney

Company,

and/or Agency:

Address: 1300 Cassopolis Street 1300 Cassopolis Street

P.O. Box 1337 P.O. Box 1337

Elkhart, IN 46515-1337 Elkhart, IN 46515-1337

Primary E-mail: dmulvaney@smd-law.com dmulvaney@smspilawyers.com

Secondary e-mail: dmulvaney@smspilawyers.com

Telephone Number: (574) 266-8500 (574) 266-8500

Facsimile: (574) 206-9215 (574) 206-9215

Date: January 15, 2013 s/ Douglas A. Mulvaney 

case 3:12-cv-00840-TLS-CAN document 15 filed 01/15/13 page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      18,882,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,649,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   120,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,931,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,830,000
<PP&E>                                      39,611,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,329,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,720,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,576,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  41,630,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,720,000
<SALES>                                      9,711,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,711,000
<CGS>                                        5,436,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,436,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,045,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   121,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,166,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,166,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

) 

v. ) CASE NO. 2:13-CR-06-HAB 

 ) (2:19-CV-217) 

) 

DAVID LEE HARDIN, JR ) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

David Lee Hardin, Jr (“Petitioner”) moves pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set 

aside, or correct his conviction and sentence on the grounds that his guilty plea was not knowing 

and voluntary and his counsel provided ineffective assistance. (ECF No. 96). In addition, he seeks 

the appointment of counsel to pursue his § 2255 petition. (ECF No. 95). 

There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a § 2255 proceeding. See 

Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). In § 2255 actions, the appointment of counsel 

is governed by the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, Rules 6(a) and 8(c), which mandate the 

appointment of counsel where discovery is necessary or if the matter proceeds to an evidentiary 

hearing. The Court may also appoint counsel to a financially eligible petitioner if justice so 

requires. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). At this stage, no discovery or evidentiary hearing is 

required in the instant case and Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that justice requires the 

appointment of counsel. Accordingly, at present, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel 

(ECF No. 95) is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED on September 8, 2020. 

s/ Holly A. Brady 

JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00006-HAB-APR document 104 filed 09/08/20 page 1 of 1
Weldon NORMAN, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 12-5378.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
DeJuan Marnell EDWARDS, petitioner, v. Debra SCUTT, Warden, et al.

No. 12-10117.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
David LEON, petitioner, v. Mike McDONALD, Warden.

No. 12-9155.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.