alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-41

)

MATTHEW L. VANSCHOICK )

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 March 21, 2014, 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 21st day of March 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
Skip to main content

          Skip to FDA Search

          Skip to in this section menu

          Skip to footer links


U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government



					Here's how you know

          			Dot gov**The .gov means it's official.**Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

							      SSL**The site is secure.** The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely. 

			U.S. Food and Drug Administration

				

        Search

            Menu

							

						Search FDA

									

									Submit search 

		Featured

							Contact FDA

								FDA Guidance Documents

								Recalls, Market Withdrawals and Safety Alerts

								Press Announcements

								Warning Letters

								Advisory Committees

								En Español



					Products

								Food

												Drugs

												Medical Devices

												Radiation-Emitting Products

												Vaccines, Blood, and Biologics

												Animal and Veterinary

												Cosmetics

												Tobacco ProductsTopics

								About FDA

												Combination Products

												Regulatory Information

												Safety

												Emergency Preparedness

												International Programs

												News and Events

												Training and Continuing Education

												Inspections and Compliance

												Science and ResearchInformation For

								Consumers

									Patients

									Industry

									Health Professionals

									Federal, State and Local Officials Home FDA ErrorApologies; the page you are requesting is currently unavailable. The request resembles an abusive automated request.  If you believe this an error, please contact us and we will assist in resolving the issue.

		 Thank you for visiting!


Footer Links FDA Archive

          About FDA

          Accessibility

      Visitor Information

          Website Policies / Privacy

          No FEAR Act

		  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy

      FOIA

          HHS.gov

          USA.gov


Contact FDA Follow FDA on Facebook Follow FDA on Twitter View FDA videos on YouTube Subscribe to FDA RSS feeds
 FDA Homepage
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Stephen M. Smith, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officersand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): 

 

a) all significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Farid MOHAMMED, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9481.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 4(b) 






	SUPPLEMENT TO INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT 

      WITH 

      MERRILL LYNCH ASSET MANAGEMENT




	     As of January 1,
1994 Merrill Lynch Investment Management d/b/a Merrill  Lynch Asset Management was
reorganized as a limited partnership, formally know  as Merrill Lynch Asset Management,
L.P. and continuing to do business under the  name Merrill Lynch Asset Management
(“MLAM”). The general partner of MLAM is  Princeton Services, Inc. and the
limited partners are Merrill Lynch Investment  Management, Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co.,
Inc. Pursuant to Rule 202 (a) (1) –1  under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule
2a-6 under the Investment  Company Act of 1940, such reorganization did not constitute an
assignment of  this investment advisory agreement since it did not involve a change of
control  or management of the investment adviser. Pursuant to the requirements of Section
205 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, however, Merrill Lynch Asset  Management
hereby supplements this investment advisory agreement by undertaking  to advise you of
any change in the membership of the partnership within a  reasonable time after any such
change occurs.






 
	 	By:  	  /s/ Arthur Zeikel 
      

    
	Dated: January 3, 1994
Blenda K. HAGBERG, petitioner, v. LAKES BROADCASTING GROUP, INC., et al.

No. 12-8585.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

v. ) No. 2:13 CR 116

)

JEANETTA BROWN )

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY,

 ADJUDICATION OF GUILTY AND

CONFIRMATION OF SENTENCING HEARING

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge

(DE # 22), to which the defendant has waived objection, and subject to this court’s

consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(3), the Magistrate

Judge’s findings are now ADOPTED, defendant’s plea of guilty to the offense charged in

Count 4 of the Indictment is now hereby ACCEPTED, and defendant is adjudged guilty of

that offense. A sentencing date will be set under separate order.

SO ORDERED.

Date: May 15, 2014

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Lakesha NORINGTON, petitioner, v. Mark LEVENHAGEN, Superintendent, Westville Correctional Facility.

No. 12-7705.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Emil A. BIENDARA, et al., petitioners, v. RCI, LLC, fka Resort Condominiums International, LLC, et al.

No. 12-1131.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7736** 

DERRICK LAMONT WATKINS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. JOE HARRON , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 5:11

- hc

- 02181

- F )

Submitted : January 22, 2013 Decided: January 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
. Derrick Lamont Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Derrick Lamont W atkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificat e of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasona ble jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Watkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con tentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DOMINIQUE WRIGHT

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 1615

[ December 28, 2023 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Caroline C. Shepherd,

Judge; L.T. Case No. 502008CF004966B XXX

- MB.

Dominique Wright, West Palm Beach, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

L EVINE

, F ORST and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Alfredo ALVAREZ-SOTO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6593.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

*539Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12263]



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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Research Service


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of availability and intent.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Plan Variety Protection 
Application Serial No. 94-00-265 ``Rush Intermediate Wheatgrass,'' is 
available for licensing and that the United States Department of 
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant an 
exclusive license to the University of Idaho. A public notice of 
release for this variety was held on February 14, 1994.

DATES: Comments must be received by no later than August 16, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA-ARS-Office of Technology Transfer, 
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Baltimore Boulevard, Building 
005, Room 416, BARC-W, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2350.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew Watkins of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville 
address given above; telephone: 301/504-6786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's plant variety 
protection rights to this variety are assigned to the United States of 
America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the 
public interest to so license this invention, for the University of 
Idaho has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a 
license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and 
will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 
404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within 
ninety days from the date of this published Notice, ARS receives 
written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the 
license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 
and 37 CFR 404.7.
R.M. Parry,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-12263 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-M
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 1 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 2 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 3 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 4 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 5 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 6 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 7 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 8 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 9 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 10 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 11 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 12 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 13 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 14 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 15 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 16 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 17 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 18 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 19 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 20 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 21 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 22 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 23 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 24 of 25
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1 filed 11/19/12 page 25 of 25
Tyree LAWSON, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 12-9888.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office, denied.
NO. 07-03-0142-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	NOVEMBER 3, 2004

	______________________________

	MINERAL EXCHANGE, LTD., APPELLANT

	V.

	TEXACO INC., ET AL., APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 223RD DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY;

	NO. 31976; HONORABLE LEE WATERS, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Pending before this Court is an agreed motion filed by appellants/conditional appellees Mineral Exchange, Ltd., Kaari Oil Company, and Bourland and Leverich Oil and Gas, Ltd. and appellees/conditional appellants Texaco Exploration and Production, Inc. and Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. by which they request this appeal be dismissed with prejudice and that each party bear its own costs and fees.  Without passing on the merits of the appeal, the motion is granted.  Having dismissed the appeal at the  request of all parties,  no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

	Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with prejudice.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A).

						Don H. Reavis

						    Justice
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11715]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-274-000]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.; Notice of Filing

May 8, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 3, 1995, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 
Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing certain revised tariff sheets 
to Third Revised Volume No. 1 of its FERC Gas Tariff enumerated in 
Appendix A attached to the filing.
    Transco states that the purpose of the instant filing is to revise 
Transco's capacity release tariff provisions set forth in Section 42 of 
the General Terms and Conditions of its Volume No. 1 tariff to comply 
with Order No. 577 issued March 29, 1995 in Docket No. RP95-5-000.
    Transco states that it has served copies of the instant filing to 
its customers, State Commissions and other interested parties.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests should be filed on or 
before May 15, 1995. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11715 Filed 5-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Steven Andrew TRZECIAK, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-9711.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), David Rickey, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. |  | This report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. |  | The information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ DAVID RICKEYDavid Rickey, Chief Executive Officer




Dated: November 13, 2003