alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUDY SIMENTAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00801-SI 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 38

Plaintiff has filed a second request for appointment of counsel to represent him in this 

action. Docket No. 38. A district court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to 

designate counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn 

v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the 

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive 

and both must be viewed together before deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). 

Here, exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are not evident at this time. 

Plaintiff states that he is disabled, but the form attached to the request shows his disability is a 

mobility related disability, e.g., he uses a walker and, when there are more than six stairs, he is 

supposed to take an elevator. Docket No. 38 at 11. The limits on his mobility do not present an 

exceptional circumstance requiring appointment of counsel. His other arguments also do not 

persuade the court that appointment of counsel is necessary, as he describes circumstances 

common to almost all prisoner litigation about medical care in prison (e.g., difficulties in 

investigating the claim, need for discovery, need to prepare for jury trial, and desire to hire an 

expert). Plaintiff has been able to adequately articulate his claims, and the court is unable to 
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits on the record before the court. The request for 

appointment of counsel is DENIED. Docket No. 38.

Plaintiff is reminded that attendance and participation in the upcoming settlement 

conference proceedings is mandatory. See Docket No. 33 at 2. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2018

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge
Todd Wayne ELLIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-5918.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
EX-34.4
(logo) Grant Thornton

Accountants and Business Advisors


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors and Shareholders
LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc.


We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria ("Management's
Report"), that Land America Tax and Flood Services, Inc. (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 and
commercial mortgage backed securities for which the Company served as
third-party property tax payment provider on the underlying collateral (the
"Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria
1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i)-(x)
and 1122(d)(4)(xiii)-(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to
the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management
is responsible for the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the
Platform based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of 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 circumstances. 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, management's assertion that Land America Tax and Flood Services,
Inc. complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

San Diego, CA
February 6, 2008


12340 El Camino Real
Suite 220
San Diego, CA 92130
T 858.704.8000
F 858.704.8099
W www.grantthornton.com

Grant Thornton LLP
US Member of Grant Thornton International
EXHIBIT 2

FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-3 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 1
Tony SMITH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9684.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Mohamed Ali SAMANTAR, petitioner, v. Bashe Abdi YOUSUF, et al.

No. 12-1078.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                        PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of Arbor  Entech  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  October 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Harvey Houtkin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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 result of operations of the Company.


                                        /S/ HARVEY HOUTKIN
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Harvey Houtkin
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        November 30, 2006
Anthony G. HUNT, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN, et al.

No. 12-8758.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Gary COSSEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-5372.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2012.

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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

OSCAR GUILLEN, SR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 2:13-CV-070

)

MR. LEAVELL AND MS. LETO, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the complaint filed by

Oscar Guillen, Sr., in the Lake Superior Court on December 19,

2012, which was removed to this Court by the defendants on February

22, 2013. (DE #1). For the reasons set forth below, the court

DISMISSES the federal claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE and REMANDS the

State claims to the Lake Superior Court. 

DISCUSSION

Oscar Guillen, Sr., a pro se prisoner, cannot litigate in this

Court because he is a restricted filer. On October 29, 2009, in

Guillen v. Hoppe, 2:09-cv-345 (N.D. Ind. filed October 19, 2009),

the Clerk was ordered “to return, unfiled, any papers filed in any

case by or on behalf of Oscar Guillen, Sr. (except for a notice of

appeal or unless filed in a criminal or habeas corpus proceeding)

until he has paid in full all outstanding fees and sanctions in all

civil actions in any federal court . . ..” That sanction was

imposed because Guillen is an abusive litigator who had filed nine
meritless cases or appeals and then attempted to bamboozle the

court in an attempt to evade his obligation to pre-pay the filing

fee as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The restriction is still in

place because he owes this court $3,465 in unpaid filing fees.

 The defendants removed this case from State court because it

included a federal claim. It is their right to do so. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1441. However, because Guillen is unable to file anything in this

court, it is impossible for him litigate this case here. Therefore,

the federal claims will be dismissed without prejudice so that the

remaining State claims can be remanded back to State court. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the court DISMISSES the

federal claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE and REMANDS the State claims to

the Lake Superior Court. 

DATED: February 25, 2013 RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United State District Court

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-cr-28-TLS-SLC

)

DAMIAN DUBOSE )

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 Susan Collins, on

September 16, 2015, 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 Count 2 of the Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Findings 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 16th day of September 2015.

s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge

2
EXHIBIT 4.1


	
COMMON STOCK
	
COMMON STOCK

	
PAR VALUE 
	
PAR VALUE 

	
$0.10
	
$0.10

	 	 
	 	 
	 	
SHARES


	 	
CUSIP 603158 10 6

	
[GRAPHIC DESIGN]
	
See reverse for certain definitions

	 	 
	
THIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERABLE
	 
	
IN BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
	 
	
OR NEW YORK, NEW YORK
	 
	 	 




 

 

MINERALS TECHNOLOGIES INC.


INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

 

	
    This certifies that 

     

    
    is the owner of



 

 

FULLY-PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK OF




Minerals Technologies Inc., transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. 


Witness the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.


 

DATED:


Countersigned and Registered:


	
STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY


(BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS)



Transfer Agent and Registrar
	
/s/
	
Chairman
	
[Minerals Technologies Inc. LOGO]

	
By
	 	 
	 	
/s/
	
Secretary

	
Authorized Signature
	 	 




 



 

This certificate also evidences and entitles the holder hereof to the same number of Rights (subject to adjustment) as the number of shares of Common Stock represented by this certificate, such Rights being on the terms provided under the Rights Agreement between Minerals Technologies Inc. and Chemical Bank (the "Rights Agent"), dated as of October 26, 1992, as it may be amended from time to time (The "Rights Agreement"), the terms of which are incorporated herein by reference and a copy of which is on file at the principal executive offices of Minerals Technologies Inc. Under certain circumstances, as set forth in the Rights Agreement, such Rights shall be evidenced by separate certificates and shall no longer be evidenced by this certificate. Minerals Technologies Inc. shall mail to the registered holder of this certificate a copy of the Rights Agreement without charge within five days after receipt of a written request therefor. Under certain circumstances as provided in Section 7(e) of the Rights Agreement, Rights issued to or Beneficially Owned by Acquiring Persons or their Affiliates or Associates (as such terms are defined in the Rights Agreement) or any subsequent holder of such Rights shall be null and void and may not be transferred to any Person.
Janet MARCUSSE, petitioner, v. John V. FLOURNOY, Warden.

No. 13-5926.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.

*672Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
Michael Alexander ROBINSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9587.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

HASSAN BIN ATTASH, 

Petitioner,

v.

BARACK OBAMA, et al., 

Respondents.

Civil Action No. 05-1592 (RCL) 

ORDER

The parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED. Respondents shall file 

their oppositions to (a) Petitioner’s Motion for Disclosure of Evidence Relating to Torture, 

Abuse, and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment; (b) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel 

Exculpatory Evidence and Automatic Discovery; and (c) Petitioner’s Motion for Permissive 

Discovery, all filed under seal with the Court Security Officer on March 3, 2009 (see Notice of 

Filings, Dkt. No. 176), by Friday, April 3, 2009. Petitioner shall file his reply to such 

oppositions by Friday, April 17, 2009. 

 Date Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth 

 United States District Judge 

3/30/2009 /s/
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1325 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1325

  To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to repeal authorities 
             relating to H1-B visas for temporary workers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2005

 Mr. Tancredo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to repeal authorities 
             relating to H1-B visas for temporary workers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO H1-B VISAS FOR TEMPORARY 
              WORKERS.

    (a) Repeal of H1-B Provisions.--The Immigration and Nationality Act 
(8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 212(n), 214(c)(9), 214(c)(10), and 286(s).
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 214(c)(5)(A) of such Act (8 U.S.C 
        1184(c)(5)(A)) is amended by striking ``101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
        or''.
            (2) Section 214(g)(1) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)) is 
        amended by striking ``1992)--'' and all that follows through 
        ``(B)'' and inserting ``1992)''.
                                 <all>
```
Charles STENSON, petitioner, v. Phillip HEATH, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility.

No. 12-9165.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:12-CR-125 JD

)

RICKY RUIZ (02) )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation upon

a plea of guilty issued on June 12, 2013 [DE 73]. Accordingly, the court now ADOPTS those

findings and recommendations, with the exception that the schedule for sentencing laid out therein

has been superseded by the schedule laid out by this court in the entry entered June 13, 2013. [DE

74]. The court ACCEPTS defendant Ricky Ruiz’ plea of guilty, ACCEPTS the plea agreement, and

FINDS the defendant guilty of Count 2 of the Indictment, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: July 17, 2013 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26039-26040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11940]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meetings:

Name of SEP: The Etiology of Excess Cardiovascular Disease in 
Diabetes Mellitus
Date: June 19-20, 1995
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Place: Holiday Inn, Bethesda, Maryland [[Page 26040]] 
Contact Person: Kathryn W. Ballard, Ph.D., 6701 Rockledge Drive, Rm. 
7194, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-7924, (301) 435-0278
Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

Name of SEP: Human Stem Cell Sources and Transplantation
Date: June 26-27, 1995
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Place: Holiday Inn, Chevy Chase, Maryland
Contact Person: Deborah P. Beebe, Ph.D., 6701 Rockledge Drive, Rm. 
7206, Bethesda, Maryland 20982-7924, (301) 435-0303
Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    These meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs Nos. 93.837, Heart 
and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; and 
93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes 
of Health)

    Dated: May 8, 1995.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 95-11940 Filed 5-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
FILED: May 29, 2001 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1677
VULCAN CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED; VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus PHILLIP J. BARKER, d/b/a Sabra Asia, Defendant-Appellant.

ORDER

_______________ Upon motion of Barker and after considering the record and briefs and argument of counsel, for the reasons expressed in an opinion in writing this day filed, it is accordingly ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the order of the district court appealed from, which was filed May 24, 2001, shall be, and it hereby is, stayed during the pendency of this appeal and until the further order of this court. Upon the motion of the Vulcan companies, that I stay this order pending a reconsideration of the motion of Barker by a panel of this court, I deny the motion for the reason that the Superior Court of Sacramento County, California is awaiting the outcome ofthis proceeding, and I am advised that such hearing has been set for 12:00 noon this date, Eastern Daylight Time. This order is entered at 11:55 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Each of the attorneys for all of the parties objected to every adverse ruling contained in my opinion and in this order, for every reason which may be supported by the record, and stated fully the grounds for such objection. Entered this 29th day of May, 2001, at 11:55 a.m.
/s/

__________________________ H. E. Widener, Jr. United States Circuit Judge
Ganiyu A. JAIYEOLA, petitioner, v. FEDERAL-MOGUL CORPORATION.

No. 12-1213.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.