alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1995  
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1995  
<CASH>                                     701,979  
<SECURITIES>                                     0  
<RECEIVABLES>                              602,231  
<ALLOWANCES>                              (30,858)  
<INVENTORY>                                      0  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         1,388,820  
<PP&E>                                   8,991,515  
<DEPRECIATION>                           3,542,025  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           6,838,310  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      213,547  
<BONDS>                                    554,228  
<COMMON>                                         0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0  
<PREFERRED>                                      0  
<OTHER-SE>                               6,070,535  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             6,838,310  
<SALES>                                  3,548,928  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         3,602,339  
<CGS>                                    1,337,599  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,337,599  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         1,540,079  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          37,898  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            686,762  
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        686,762  
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0  
<CHANGES>                                        0  
<NET-INCOME>                               686,762  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   23  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   23  
                                                                         


</TABLE>
Amendment #16 to the Trust Agreement



 Exhibit 10(q) 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER SIXTEEN 
  
 TO 
  
 GRANTOR TRUST AGREEMENT 

 
 THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the 15th day of September, 2003 by and between
THE BANK OF NEW YORK COMPANY, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”), and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK (formerly known as THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK), a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the New York (hereinafter referred to as the “Trustee”). 
  
 W  I  T  N  E  S  S  E  T  H  : 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Trustee entered into a Grantor Trust Agreement
dated as of November 16, 1993 (as amended from time to time, the “Agreement”); 
  
 WHEREAS, Article TWELFTH of the Agreement provides that the Company may amend the Agreement; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Agreement; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Trustee agree as follows, effective September 15, 2003: 
  
 Exhibit I to the Agreement is amended by deleting Exhibit I in its entirety and substituting therefor Exhibit I in the form
attached hereto. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
caused this agreement to be executed in their respective names by their duly authorized officers under their corporate seals as of the day and year first above written. 
  

									
	 ATTEST:
	 	 	 	 THE BANK OF NEW YORK COMPANY, INC.

					
	 	 	/s/    PATRICIA A. BICKET        	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/    BRUCE W. VAN SAUN        
	
	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Bruce W. Van Saun
 Senior Executive Vice President

			
	 ATTEST:
	 	 	 	 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK

					
	 	 	/s/    GERARD STAFFORD-SMITH        	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/    MICHAEL T. CAREW        
	
	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Name:
 Title:
	 	 Michael T. Carew
 Assistant Vice President


  

 - 1 - 








 Exhibit 10(q) 
 EXHIBIT I 
  

	1.	The Bank of New York Company, Inc. Excess Benefit Plan 

  

	2.	The Bank of New York Company, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan 

  

	3.	Severance Agreements between The Bank of New York Company, Inc. and the following persons: 

  

			
	 Individual

	  	 Date of Agreement


	 Thomas P. Gibbons
	  	 July 11, 2000

	 Leslie V. Godridge
	  	 July 11, 2000

	 Alan R. Griffith
	  	 July 11, 2000

	 Gerald L. Hassell
	  	 July 11, 2000

	 Donald R. Monks
	  	 July 11, 2000

	 Robert J. Mueller
	  	 July 11, 2000

	 Thomas J. Perna
	  	 July 11, 2000

	 Charles E. Rappold II
	  	 September 30, 2000

	 Thomas A. Renyi
	  	 July 11, 2000

	 Brian G. Rogan
	  	 July 11, 2000

	 J. Michael Shepherd
	  	 January 22, 2001

	 Bruce W. Van Saun
	  	 July 11, 2000

	 Joseph M. Velli
	  	 July 11, 2000

	 Kurt D. Woetzel
	  	 July 8, 2003


  

 -2-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

ROBERT HOLLAND )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Case No. 2:13-CV-00491-RL-JEM

)

CEREBERUS CAPITAL )

MANAGEMENT, L.P., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS’ CERBERUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP,

STEPHEN FEINBERG, AND ROBERT NARDELLI'S

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) AND (b)(2)

Defendant Cerberus Capital Management, LP, Stephen Feinberg, and Robert Nardelli

(“Cerberus Defendants”) by their undersigned counsel, respectfully move the Court to dismiss

the Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint as against Cerberus Defendants for failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and for lack of personal

jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). In support of this motion, Cerberus Defendants

are filing contemporaneously herewith the Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and (b)(2).

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 28 filed 06/17/14 page 1 of 3
2

WHEREFORE, Cerberus Defendants pray that the Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint be

dismissed, with prejudice and without leave to amend.

s/ Mark D. Stuaan

Jason R. Barclay

Mark D. Stuaan

BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP

11 South Meridian Street

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Tel. (317) 236-1313

Fax (317) 231-7433

Email: jason.barclay@btlaw.com

Email: mark.stuaan@btlaw.com

Howard O. Godnick (pro hac vice pending)

Joshua R. Schonauer (pro hac vice pending)

SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLP

919 Third Avenue

New York, NY 10022

Tel. (212) 756-2000

Fax (212) 593-5955

Email: howard.godnick@srz.com

Email: joshua.schonauer@srz.com

Attorneys for Defendants Cerberus Capital

Management, L.P., Stephen Feinberg and

Robert Nardelli

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 28 filed 06/17/14 page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 17th day of June, 2014, a copy of the foregoing was filed

electronically and served on all counsel of record by the Court’s ECF filing system.

Additionally, a copy of the foregoing was sent to the following pro se Plaintiff by

depositing same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid:

Robert Holland

1120 Baker Street

Gary, IN 46404

s/ Mark D. Stuaan

Mark D. Stuaan

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 28 filed 06/17/14 page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11861]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-278-000]


CNG Transmission Corp.; Notice of Section 4 Filing

May 9, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 4, 1995, CNG Transmission Corporation (CNG) 
tendered for filing pursuant to Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act, a 
notice of termination of gathering service for specified uncertificated 
gathering lines.
    CNG states that the uncertificated lines are being sold or 
abandoned in place. CNG further states that although no contract for 
transportation service with CNG will be canceled or terminated, the 
meter receipt points will change under some or all of the related Pool 
Operating Agreements. CNG asserts that the receipt point(s) into its 
system will either be moved downstream of the current points or, in the 
case of abandonment in place, eliminated. CNG states that a new 
downstream receipt point may also become an allocated receipt point 
under the pooling agreements where the purchasers of gas must agree to 
an allocation of deliveries to CNG at that receipt point.
    CNG indicates that it has notified all parties in either the 
related transportation agreement of the related polling agreement of 
this filing.
    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, D.C., 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure. All such motions or protests should be filed 
on or before May 16, 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.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11861 Filed 5-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 138 

To revise the boundaries of John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Jekyll Island Unit GA–06P. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2005 

Mr. KINGSTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To revise the boundaries of John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Jekyll Island Unit GA–06P. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF CERTAIN JOHN H. CHAFEE 

4 COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The map subtitled ‘‘GA–06P’’, re6 lating to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

7 System unit designated as Coastal Barrier Resources Sys8 tem Jekyll Island Unit GA–06P, that is included in the 

9 set of maps entitled ‘‘John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Re10 sources System’’ and referred to in section 4(a) of the 
2 

•HR 138 IH 

1 Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)), is 

2 hereby replaced by another map relating to the unit enti3 tled ‘‘John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 

4 Jekyll Island Unit GA–06P’’ and dated lllll. 

5 (b) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary of the Interior 

6 shall keep the replacement map referred to in subsection 

7 (a) on file and available for inspection in accordance with 

8 the provisions of section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Re9 sources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)). 

Æ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUDOLPH ELLIS, Jr.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. RALPH DIAZ, Secretary of Corrections,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 21

- 15265
D.C. No. 1:20

- cv - 00134

- DAD

- EPG

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd , District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 15, 2022 * *
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Rudolph Ellis, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
claims . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de no vo.
Wilhelm v. Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 15265

28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter , 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (ii)) . We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Ellis’s First and Fourteenth Amendment claims stemming from the denial of family visits because Ellis failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim

. See Vill. of Willowbrook v.
Olech , 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (per curiam) ( setting forth elements of an equal protection “class of one” claim) ; Ramirez v. Galaza , 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) ( explaining that “ i nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure ”); Gerber v. Hickman , 291 F.3d 617, 621 (9th Cir. 2002) ( noting “ i t is well

- settled that prisoners have no constitutional right while incarcerated to contact visits or conjugal visits” ) ; 15 C.C.R. § 3177 (defining “family visits” as “extended overnight vi sits”); see also Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) ( stating that although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim)

. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ellis leave to
amend because amendment would have been futile

. See Cervantes v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc. , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court may dismiss without leave to amend when amendment would be futile)

. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued3 21

- 15265

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
      32.2





**SECTION
      906 CERTIFICATION**





I,
      Dennis
      M. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of PhotoMedex, Inc., a Delaware corporation
      (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1)
      the
      accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
      September 30, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      as amended; and





(2)
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
      November 9, 2007




By:
            /s/
              Dennis M. McGrathDennis
                M. McGrath
              Chief
                Financial Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (“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 PhotoMedex, Inc. and will be retained by PhotoMedex, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.





E-32.2
Ann McCAULEY, petitioner, v. GEORGIA, et al.

No. 12-10182.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 30, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Вспышка пищевой инфекции, которую можно было предотвратить

У моего ребенка, Мануэля, был жар и понос, Я обязана была это сделать, иначе Я обязана была это сделать, иначе рисковала 

так что я не спала ночь, ухаживая за ним. На рисковала потерять работу. потерять работу.

следующее утро я должна была идти на работу.

Мэри наслаждалась обедом в Хлеб был вкусен, но Мэри не имела На следующий день люди, которых я 

обществе своего отца. представления, что она съедает вместе с ним. обслужила, жаловались на недомогание с 

поносом и рвотой.

Мэри, у которой оказалась слабая Через несколько дней Мэри оказалась Мне не хотелось, чтобы кто-то заболел из-за 

иммунная система, заболела очень в реанимации. 25 человек заболели с меня. Но из-за микробов на моих руках ктосерьезно. рвотой и поносом. Ресторан закрыли, и то мог погибнуть.

я потеряла работу.

Оберегайте людей повсюду. Мойте руки тщательно и своевременно. 

Не касайтесь голыми руками пищи, готовой к употреблению.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No.: 2:14-CR-36-JTM-PRC

)

IBRAHAM BERRY, )

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Bill of Particulars [DE 50], filed by

Defendant Berry on October 28, 2014. The Government has not filed a response, and the time to do

so has passed. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(f) provides:

The court may direct the government to file a bill of particulars. The

defendant may move for a bill of particulars before or within 10 days

after arraignment or at a later time if the court permits. The

government may amend a bill of particulars subject to such

conditions as justice requires.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f). The decision whether to require a bill of particulars lies within the sound

discretion of the trial court. United States v. Fassnacht, 332 F.3d 440, 446 (7th Cir. 2003); United

States v. Canino, 949 F.2d 928, 949 (7th Cir. 1991). The purposes of a bill of particulars include:

(1) allowing a defendant to avoid double jeopardy in the event of a subsequent prosecution for the

same offense; (2) avoiding prejudicial surprise at trial; and (3) providing a defendant with

information sufficient for him to prepare his defense. See United States v. Roman, 728 F.2d 846, 856

(7th Cir. 1984).

Having reviewed the matter and finding it well-taken, the Court hereby GRANTS the

Motion for Bill of Particulars [DE 50] and ORDERS that the Government provide Defendant with

a bill of particulars by December 5, 2014, clarifying the following.
1. What is the “merchandise” referred to in Count Two of the Indictment?

2. How is the value of that “merchandise” determined?

3. Upon what facts does the Government base the charge that the

“merchandise” was “transported in interstate commerce”?

SO ORDERED this 21st day of November, 2014.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

ROBERT HOLLAND )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Case No. 2:13-CV-00491-RL-JEM

)

CEREBERUS CAPITAL )

MANAGEMENT, L.P., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE

COMES NOW, Jason R. Barclay (“Barclay”), counsel of record for Defendants, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Stephen Feinberg, and Robert Nardelli (the “Cerberus

Defendants”), and for his Motion to Withdraw Appearance shows the Court as follows:

1. Barclay recently informed the Cerberus Defendants that he has accepted a

position as general counsel to the Governor of Illinois and is withdrawing as a partner at Barnes

& Thornburg LLP.

2. Attorney Mark Stuaan of Barnes & Thornburg LLP and attorneys Howard

Godnick and Joshua Schonauer of Schultz Roth & Zabel LLP will continue to represent the

Cerberus Defendants in this matter.

WHEREFORE, Jason R. Barclay respectfully requests an Order from this Court

withdrawing his name as counsel of record for Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Stephen

Feinberg, and Robert Nardelli.

USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 125 filed 12/29/14 page 1 of 2
2

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jason R. Barclay

Jason R. Barclay

BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

11 South Meridian Street

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Telephone: (317) 231-7250

Fax: (317) 231-7433

Attorney for Defendants Cerberus Capital

Management, L.P., Stephen Feinberg and Robert

Nardelli

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 29th day of December, 2014, a copy of the foregoing was

filed electronically and has been served on all counsel of record by the Court’s ECF filing

system.

Additionally, a copy of the foregoing was sent to the following pro se Plaintiff by

depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid:

Robert Holland

1120 Baker Street

Gary, IN 46404

s/ Jason R. Barclay

Jason R. Barclay

INDS02 JBARCLAY 1352409v1

USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 125 filed 12/29/14 page 2 of 2
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 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 Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Maxtor Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended April 2, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dr. C.S. Park, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), that:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and(2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Dr. C.S. Park
Dr. C.S. ParkChairman and Chief Executive
Officer Date: June 9, 2005 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Case No. 2:14-cr-62 

 ) 2:14-cr-96 

CEDRIC SHAW. ) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY 

TO: THE HONORABLE JAMES T. MOODY 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 Upon defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11, this matter came on for hearing before the Honorable Andrew P. Rodovich, United 

States Magistrate Judge, on April 6, 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, 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 Assistant United States Attorney Gary 

T. Bell, and of Attorney Ashwin Cattamanchi, counsel for the defendant, 

 I FIND as follows: 

1. that the 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; 
2 

3. that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including 

the effect of the supervised release term, and the defendant understands that the 

Probation Department will prepare a pre-sentence report based upon the 

sentencing guidelines but 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; 

5. that the 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 to the offenses 

charged in Counts One and Four of the Indictment in cause number 2:14-cr-62 and Counts One, 

Four, and Five of the Indictment in cause number 2:14-cr-96 and have sentence imposed. A 

presentence report has been ordered. 

 ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2015. 

 /s/ Andrew P. Rodovich 

 United States Magistrate Judge