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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) 2:98 CR 37

)

RALPH WAYNE ANGLE )

OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendant Ralph Wayne Angle’s “Motion to

Vacate Conviction Under 18 USC § 2422(b) For Lack Of Physical Contact As Explicitly

Required By The Seventh Circuit’s Post-Conviction Clarification Of Law In United

States v. Taylor, 640 F3d 255 (7th Cir. 2011)” [sic]. (DE #355.) Defendant Angle raised

this issue in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 which this court denied (DE #339),

and in a motion for reconsideration which the court also denied. (DE #347.) On

April 23, 2014, the Court of Appeals declined to issue a Certificate of Appealability,

(Appeal No. 13-3567), and on June 23, 2014, it denied Angle’s petition for rehearing en

banc. On October 20, 2014, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. – U.S. –, 2014 WL

4647417. 

Although Angle’s present motion is styled as a motion to vacate his conviction,

without citation to the rule or statute Angle relies on for the court’s authority to do so,

that omission doesn’t matter: the motion is a request for relief under § 2255. The caption

that Angle put on it is immaterial, it is the substance of the motion that controls how his

request for relief shall be treated. United States v. Carraway, 478 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir.

2007); United States v. Lloyd, 398 F.3d 978, 979-80 (7th Cir. 2005). Any post-judgment
motion in a criminal case that fits the description of a motion to vacate, set aside, or

correct a sentence set forth in the first paragraph of § 2255 should be treated as a § 2255

motion. United States v. Evans, 224 F.3d 670, 672 (7th Cir. 2000); see also Lloyd, 398 F.3d at

980. Section 2255’s first paragraph permits a federal prisoner to file a motion to have his

sentence vacated, set aside, or corrected if it was “imposed in violation of the

Constitution or laws of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). This fits Angle’s claim

precisely, and so his motion must be treated as a request for relief pursuant to § 2255.

Because Angle’s most recent filing is a request for § 2255 relief, it is subject to the

requirement that second or successive motions under the statute must be authorized by

the Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Unless and until

Angle seeks and obtains authorization from the Court of Appeals to file such a motion,

this court is without jurisdiction to entertain his request. Nuñez v. United States, 96 F.3d

990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). Angle has not shown the court that he obtained authorization.

Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to: (1) docket Angle’s motion (DE # 355) as a

new (successive and second) § 2255 proceeding; and (2) immediately ENTER FINAL

JUDGMENT in that proceeding stating that it is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF

JURISDICTION. For the reasons given herein, Angle has not made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and no certificate of appealability will

issue.

SO ORDERED.

Date: November 12, 2014

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John W. Adams, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Sherman, J.), rendered April 27, 1983, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, robbery in the second degree and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of *IV2*to 4% years, *IV2*to 4Vfe years, and 1 to 3 years, respectively.

Judgment affirmed.

The sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s application for youthful offender treatment (CPL 720.10 [3]; *see, People v Williams,*78 AD2d 642). Nor is there any merit to defendant’s contention that the sentencing court engaged in a wholesale delegation of its sentencing authority to the Probation Department *(cf People v Fuller,*57 NY2d 152, 158). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
Angela MORMAN-JOHNSON, petitioner, v. Gary S. HATHAWAY, et al.

No. 12-10262.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 01-10091

Summary Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIE LEON WASHINGTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(5:94-CR-31-2-C)

____________________________________________________________

June 4, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Willie Leon Washington appeals the district court’s revocation

of his supervised release. Washington was represented by appointed

counsel (Federal Public Defender). 

First, Washington maintains the court: should have required

the Government to present independent evidence against him; and

should have provided reasons for its judgment. Washington waived

these rights by pleading true to the charges in the revocation

motion. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972); United
2

States v. Ayers, 946 F.2d 1127, 1129-30 (5th Cir. 1991); United

States v. Holland, 850 F.2d 1048, 1050-51 (5th Cir. 1988). 

Second, Washington also contends, for the first time on

appeal, that the court should have ascertained on the record that

this plea was knowing and voluntary. He asserts that, even though

a revocation hearing is involved, such court-action is required

under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). Because Washington

did not object to the court’s failure to do so, review is only for

plain error. E.g., United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64

(5th Cir. 1994)(en banc), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1196 (1995).

Washington does not even satisfy the first step for plain error

review; he has failed to show “clear” or “obvious” error arising

out of not being provided Boykin protections at the hearing.

AFFIRMED
case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM-RBC document 4 filed 12/31/13 page 1 of 3 case 1:14-cv-00235 document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 2 of 21
case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM-RBC document 4 filed 12/31/13 page 2 of 3 case 1:14-cv-00235 document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 3 of 21
case 1:14-cv-00235-JTM-RBC document 4 filed 12/31/13 page 3 of 3 case 1:14-cv-00235 document 1-3 filed 08/05/14 page 4 of 21
1























































CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S NOTICE RE JOHN COOPER

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

 Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)

 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com

 David A. Perlson (Bar No. 209502)

 davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com

 Melissa J. Baily (Bar No. 237649)

 melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com

 John Neukom (Bar No. 275887)

 johnneukom@quinnemanuel.com

 Jordan Jaffe (Bar No. 254886)

 jordanjaffe@quinnemanuel.com

50 California Street, 22nd Floor

San Francisco, California 94111-4788

Telephone: (415) 875-6600

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

PLAINTIFF WAYMO’S NOTICE 

REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF JOHN 

COOPER AS A SPECIAL MASTER

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 192 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 2
1























































-1- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S NOTICE RE JOHN COOPER

The Court has suggested the potential appointment of John Cooper as a special master in the 

above-captioned action. Subject to Mr. Cooper’s clearing conflicts, Plaintiff Waymo LLC 

(“Waymo”) does not object to the appointment of Mr. Cooper as a special master in this case. 

DATED: April 7, 2017 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN,

LLP

By /s/ Charles K. Verhoeven

Charles K. Verhoeven

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 192 Filed 04/07/17 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

CHANSE T. STARR, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No. 1:14-CV-00236

)

FORT WAYNE POLICE DEPARTMENT, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION and ORDER

Before the Court is a motion by pro se Plaintiff Chanse T. Starr (Docket # 3), who is

currently incarcerated, asking that the Court recruit counsel for him in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action alleging that Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights in connection with his

arrest in 2011. 

“There is no right to court-appointed counsel in federal civil litigation.” Olson v.

Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir.

2007)). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, a court may request that an attorney represent

an indigent litigant; the decision whether to recruit pro bono counsel is left to the discretion of

the district court. Olson, 750 F.3d at 711; Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 658. “In deciding whether to

request counsel, district courts must ask two questions: ‘(1) [H]as the indigent plaintiff made a

reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2)

given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?’”

Olson, 750 F.3d at 711 (alteration in original) (quoting Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654). 

Here, Starr’s request for counsel is premature. The complaint has not yet been screened
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and Defendants have not appeared and filed an answer. Thus,

“the case [is] still in its infancy, thereby making it impossible at th[is] juncture to make any

accurate determination regarding [Starr’s] abilities or the outcome of the lawsuit.”1

 Romanelli v.

Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 852 (7th Cir. 2010); see also Mungiovi v. Chicago Housing Auth., No. 94

C 6663, 1994 WL 735413, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 19, 1994) (“The court’s general practice is to

consider appointment of counsel if and when it appears that the action has sufficient merit to

require complex discovery or an evidentiary hearing.”). 

Therefore, Starr’s request that the Court recruit counsel for him (Docket # 3) is DENIED

without prejudice. 

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 16th day of December 2014.

s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

1

 Starr attached correspondence from three attorneys who were unwilling to take his case. (Docket # 3.) Of

course, this is an indication that his claims may indeed have little merit and that appointing counsel will not make a

difference in the ultimate outcome. See Jackson v. Cnty. of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1073 (7th Cir. 1992)

(considering plaintiff’s unsuccessful attempts to retain counsel when denying his motion to appoint counsel).
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 132 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prevent sex offenders subject 

to involuntary civil commitments from receiving Federal student financial 

aid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2005 

Mr. KELLER (for himself, Mr. FOSSELLA, Mr. JENKINS, Mr. CRENSHAW, Ms. 

ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. MILLER of Florida, and Mr. WILSON of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prevent 

sex offenders subject to involuntary civil commitments 

from receiving Federal student financial aid. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Financial Aid for 

5 Sex Offenders Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AID. 

7 (a) PELL GRANTS.—Section 401(b)(8) of the Higher 

8 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a(b)(8)) is amend-
2 

•HR 132 IH 

1 ed by inserting before the period the following: ‘‘or who 

2 is subject to an involuntary civil commitment upon com3 pletion of a period of incarceration for a sexual offense 

4 (as determined under regulations of the Secretary)’’. 

5 (b) LOANS.—Section 484(b)(5) of such Act (20 

6 U.S.C. 1091(b)(5)) is amended by inserting before the pe7 riod the following: ‘‘and no student who is subject to an 

8 involuntary civil commitment upon completion of a period 

9 of incarceration for a sexual offense (as determined under 

10 regulations of the Secretary) is eligible to receive a loan 

11 under this title’’. 

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11714]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-275-000]


Midwestern Gas Transmission Co.; Notice of Compliance Filing

May 8, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 3, 1995, Midwestern Gas Transmission 
Company (Midwestern), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC 
Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 89, 
First Revised Sheet No. 90 and First Revised Sheet No. 97 in compliance 
with Order No. 577, issued by the Commission in the above-referenced 
docket on April 4, 1995. The effective date for the proposed tariff 
sheets is May 4, 1995.
    Midwestern states that copies of the filing has been mailed to all 
affected customers and state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said filing should file a petition to intervene or protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street 
NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 211 and 214 of 
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214. All such petitions 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 this proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a petition to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file and available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11714 Filed 5-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-84

)

DANIEL PERRY )

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 August 12, 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 Count 1 of the two-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 12th day of August 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1472 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 1472

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2006

                                Received

                           November 13, 2006

   Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
                          Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 167 East 124th Street in New York, New York, as the ``Tito Puente 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. TITO PUENTE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 167 East 124th Street in New York, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Tito Puente Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Tito 
Puente Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Alton L. SMITH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7064.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form 10-K of Titan Machinery Inc., of our reports
dated April 15, 2010, related to the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, which appear in Titan Machinery Inc.'s Form 10-K
for the years ended January 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008.

We
also consent to the incorporation by reference of the above referenced reports in the Registration Statement of Titan Machinery Inc. on Form S-8 (File
No. 333-149426, effective February 28, 2008).

/s/
Eide Bailly LLP

Minneapolis,
Minnesota
April 15, 2010

---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12774]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Gulf of Mexico Program Technical Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee of the 
Gulf of Mexico Program.

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

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Program's Technical Advisory Committee will 
hold a meeting at the Marriott Hotel, 555 Canal Street, New Orleans, 
Louisiana.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Douglas Lipka, Acting Director, Gulf of Mexico Program Office, 
Building 1103, Room 202, John C. Stennis Space Center, Stennis Space 
Center, MS 39529-6000, at (601) 688-3726.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A meeting of the Technical Advisory 
Committee of the Gulf of Mexico Program will be held June 20, 1995, at 
the Marriott Hotel, 555 Canal Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. The 
committee will meet from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda items will include: A 
report from Battelle on the draft QA/QC plan for the Gulf of Mexico 
Program; Development of a conceptual model for the Gulf of Mexico; 
Strategies for locating long-term monitoring sites on the Gulf coast 
(this will focus on possible integration of GEMS, LTER sites, LMER 
sites and REMAP); A research needs/coordination conference for the Gulf 
Program partner agencies; Hypoxia (Dead Zone) Symposium Planning; and 
Introduce the role of the TAC in the issue integration process. The 
meeting is open to the public.

Douglas A. Lipka,
Acting Director, Gulf of Mexico Program
[FR Doc. 95-12774 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
Stephen MARKGRAF, petitioner, v. A.D., a Minor, et al.

No. 13-365.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

Motion of California State Association of Counties for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.