alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 35   filed 06/19/14   page 1 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 35   filed 06/19/14   page 2 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 35   filed 06/19/14   page 3 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 35   filed 06/19/14   page 4 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 35   filed 06/19/14   page 5 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 35   filed 06/19/14   page 6 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 VS. 

RYAN DEAN SMITH 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CAUSE NO. 3:13-CR-105-RLM

O R D E R 

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

recommendations upon a plea of guilty on August 6, 2014. Accordingly, the 

court ADOPTS those findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 28), ACCEPTS 

defendant Ryan Dean Smith’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant guilty of 

Count 1 of the Indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 

SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: August 25, 2014 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

 Judge 

 United States District Court
Samuel Lee ELLIOTT, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 13-6500.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan denied.
#### Edward J. VANN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 04-3046.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 20, 2004.

Edward J. Vann, of Counsel, Willingboro, NJ, pro se.

Brian S. Smith, Principal Attorney, Mark A. Melniek, David M. Cohen, of Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Edward J. Vann moves for reconsideration of the court’s February 12, 2004 order dismissing his petition for review for failure to file a brief.

Vann has since submitted a brief.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion for reconsideration is granted, the dismissal order is vacated, and the mandate is recalled.

(2) The United States Postal Service’s brief is due within 21 days of the date of the filing of this order.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11697]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Bioengineering and Environmental 
Systems; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Bioengineering and Environmental 
Systems (No. 1189).
    Date and Time: May 31, 1995; 9:00 am-4:00 pm.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
320, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Edward H. Bryan, Program Director, Environmental 
Engineering, Division of Bioengineering and Environmental Systems, 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 
22230, Telephone: (703) 306-1318.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals as part of the 
selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matter are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 8, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-11697 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### David SKUNDOR, and the class of similarly situated persons being all prisoners housed in the Quilliams I and II Units at the Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Beverly GANDEE; James Rubenstein; Leslie K. Tyree; Thomas McBride, Warden, in his official and personal capacity; Kathryn Lucas; Joe Wood, all in their personal capacities, Defendants—Appellees, *924Garry Blocker, Defendant.

No. 04-6502.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2004.

Decided May 20, 2004.

David Skundor, Appellant pro se. Heather A. Connolly, Office of the Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

David Skundor appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Skundor v. Gandee,*No. CA-02-499 (S.D.W.Va. Mar. 11, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 117   filed 12/16/14   page 1 of 11

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 117   filed 12/16/14   page 2 of 11

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 117   filed 12/16/14   page 3 of 11

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 117   filed 12/16/14   page 4 of 11

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 117   filed 12/16/14   page 5 of 11

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 117   filed 12/16/14   page 6 of 11

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 117   filed 12/16/14   page 7 of 11

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 117   filed 12/16/14   page 8 of 11

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 117   filed 12/16/14   page 9 of 11

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 117   filed 12/16/14   page 10 of 11

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 117   filed 12/16/14   page 11 of 11
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130656 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan ARNOLD SODEN, DONALD TURNBULL, Robert P. Young, Jr. MARION TURNBULL, SHARLEEN CARRELL, Stephen J. Markman,

GLADYS RICE, DONALD RICE, A. GAGNE, Justices 

BARBARA BINKLEY, LARRY BINKLEY, 

FRED BRANT, JUDITH BRANT, FRED 

BRANT, MARY BRANT, JOSEPH BRANT, 

KENNETH ALLEN, ANN ALLEN, GERALD 

TORSCH, JANET TORSCH, EMILY TAYLOR, 

RICHARD HARTMAN, DAYNE-ANN HELD, 

JAMES SCHNIERS, JUDI SCHNIERS, RALPH 

LEVELY, DONNA LEVELY, RICHARD 

DEMARIA, NANCY DEMARIA, MARLENE 

HINCHLIFFE, TED HOINKA, ELIZABETH 

SPALTENSPERGER and GEORGE 

SPALTENSPERGER, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 130656 

 COA: 263459 

Antrim CC: 04-008070-CH 

LAKES OF THE NORTH ASSOCIATION,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 24, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0522 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 30, 2006 

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12055]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-190-002]


Williams Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

May 11, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 1, 1995, Williams Natural Gas Company (WNG) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised 
Volume No. 1, with a proposed effective date of March 31, 1995:

Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 9
Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 10

    WNG states that this filing is being made in compliance with 
Commission order issued March 31, 1995 in docket No. RP95-190. Ordering 
Paragraph (B) of the order directed WNG to file revised tariff sheets 
within 30 days of the order to reflect revised billings using the 
applicable jurisdictional percentages to calculate the various ad 
valorem costs represented in this proceeding. WNG is filing Revised 
Schedule D1, Code 1 and Revised Schedule D1, Code 8, Workpapers 001 and 
002 to reflect the change in methodology for computing the 
jurisdictional percentages in compliance with the order.
    WNG states that Attachment 1 shows the calculation of the revised 
amounts using jurisdictional percentages applicable to the ad valorem 
tax year. The ad valorem payments were evenly spread over the twelve 
months to which they apply, since the payments are applicable to the 
annual period and not to particular months. This change results in a 
reduction of approximately $97,000 in the direct bill amount.
    WNG states that a copy of the filing was served on all participants 
listed on the service lists maintained by the Commission in the dockets 
referenced above and on all of WNG's jurisdictional customers and 
interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol 
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sec. 385.211 
of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests should be 
filed on or before May 18, 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. Copies of this 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12055 Filed 5-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

I, Xin Lin, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

| | (1) | the annual report on Form 10-K of SGB International
      Holdings Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2010 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 Form 10-K fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of SGB International Holdings Inc..                                           

|Date: July 12, 2010 | /s/ Xin Lin                                                   
|------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------
|                    | Xin Lin                                                       
|                    | President, CEO, CFO and Director                              
|                    | Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Financial Officer
|                    | and Principal Accounting Officer                              



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to SGB
International Holdings Inc. and will be retained by SGB International Holdings
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
Willie M. THOMPKINS, Jr., petitioner, v. Randy PFISTER, Acting Warden.

No. 12-1061.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Thomas Joseph CUTAIA, petitioner, v. FLORIDA, et al.

No. 12-9183.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin* v. *District of Columbia* *2036*Court of Appeals,* 506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                             5
<LEGEND>

This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from ANGELES
INCOME  PROPERTIES,  LTD. II 2000 First  Quarter  10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                 0000711642
<NAME>                                ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. II
<MULTIPLIER>                                              1,000


<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                    6,035
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               317
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                                   32,599
<DEPRECIATION>                                          (23,021)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           16,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                                  17,726
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                               (2,584)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             16,463
<SALES>                                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          1,691
<CGS>                                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          1,552
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          351
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                              2,260
<EPS-BASIC>                                               21.57 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
Michael L. BERRY, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 12-9120.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
George GUTIERREZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9541.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-22-00041-CV

KAREN SUE POOL, Appellant

V.

MARCUS RAY POOL, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 91124

Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Karen Sue Pool filed a timely notice of appeal on June 9, 2022. The clerk’s record was 

filed on August 2, 2022. A reporter’s record was not taken. The original deadline for Pool’s

appellate brief was September 23, 2022. On September 1, 2022, we received a letter from Pool

and advised her that, if the letter was intended to serve as her appellate brief, we could not accept 

it because it did not meet the requirements of Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. We extended the deadline for Pool to file her brief to 

September 27, 2022. When neither a brief nor a motion to extend time for filing same was 

received by October 11, 2022, this Court advised Pool by letter that the brief was late. We also 

extended the deadline for filing the brief to October 26, 2022. We warned Pool that the failure to 

file a brief by the October 26, 2022, deadline would subject this appeal to dismissal for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c). 

Pool has not filed her brief in compliance with this Court’s deadline. Having received no

brief from Pool, this appeal is ripe for dismissal for want of prosecution. Consequently, pursuant 

to Rules 38.8 and 42.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for 

want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

Charles van Cleef

Justice

Date Submitted: November 15, 2022

Date Decided: November 16, 2022
Gerald E. BOVE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-1098.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
In re Anthony Leroy DAVIS, petitioner.

No. 12-10869.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

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

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
Said GSSIME, petitioner, v. Joseph E. PIZZOTTO, et al.

No. 12-9592.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Raymond NORTH, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-9920.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, denied.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Paul C. Honda, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of  Honda Auto Receivables 2007-3 Owner Trust (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

5. All the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  FDI Computer Consulting Inc., dba FDI Collateral Management and The Bank of New York.

Date: June 13, 2008



/s/ Paul C. HondaPaul C. HondaAssistant Vice President, Assistant Secretary and Compliance Officerof American Honda Finance Corporation(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)






---
NO. 07-04-0331-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	APRIL 6, 2005

	______________________________

	BLANCA ESTELA RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a., BLANCA

	ESTELA ALVAREZ, a.k.a, BLANCA RODRIGUEZ ALVAREZ 

										Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

										Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 47,840-A; HON. PATRICK PIRTLE, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, REAVIS, and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	Appellant Blanca Estela Rodriguez appeals her conviction of theft, enhanced by two prior convictions.  After a bench trial, she was sentenced to two years confinement in a state jail facility and fined $10,000.  

	Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief wherein she certified that, after diligently searching the record, she concluded the appeal was without merit.  Along with her brief, appellate counsel attached a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing her of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response or brief pro se.  By letter dated October 13, 2004, this court also notified appellant of her right to tender her own brief or response and set November 10, 2004, as the deadline to do so.  To date, appellant has filed neither a response, brief, nor request for an extension of time.  

	In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed two potential areas for appeal.  They involved the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence.  Thereafter, she illustrated how it lawfully supported the conviction.   	

	We have conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any error per Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  That review also failed to uncover any reversible error.  

	Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

							Brian Quinn

							   Justice

Do not publish.
Kelvin Dwain VANHOOK, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-8820.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.