alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto RODRIGUEZ-FERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-50695.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 13, 2004.

Diane D. Kirstein, Joseph H Gay, Jr, Assistant US Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David F. Riojas, Eagle Pass, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Roberto Rodriguez-Fernandez (Rodriguez) appeals his convictions for two *259counts of aiding and abetting the transportation of illegal aliens. He asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support these convictions. After reviewing the record and the arguments of counsel, we hold that a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence established the essential elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. *United, States v. Romero-Cruz,*201 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir.2000); *United States v. Jaramillo,*42 F.3d 920, 923 (5th Cir.1995). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *259published and is *not*precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
General John PARKER, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 12-8877.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District, denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007 of Boeing Capital Corporation (the Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Russell A. Evans, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, that:



| | (1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                                                            
|-------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|               | 
|April 25, 2007 |  | /s/ RUSSELL A. EVANS                                       
|               |  | Russell A. Evans Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer



23
<PAGE>
S/M REAL ESTATE FUND VII, LTD.


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.7


                            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 the Quarterly Report of S/M Real Estate Fund VII, Ltd. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, as filed with
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
E. Hoffmann, Chief Executive Officer of the general partner of the Partnership,
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 Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                   S/M REAL ESTATE FUND VII, LTD.

                               BY: SM7 APARTMENT INVESTORS INC.
                                   General Partner


Date:  May 12, 2003                BY:    /s/ Richard E. Hoffmann
                                          --------------------------------------
                                   Name:  Richard E. Hoffmann
                                   Title: Chief Executive Officer, Director,
                                          President and Treasurer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE USDC Northern Indiana

HAMMOND DIVISION

Robert Holland

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:13−cv−00491−RL−JEM

Judge Rudy Lozano

Stephen Feinberg, et al.

Defendant.

CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT

 Default is hereby entered against defendant(s)

Paul Davis ,

for failure to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 55(a).

Date: July 17, 2014 Sincerely,

ROBERT N. TRGOVICH, CLERK

By: s/ Marijana Ciric 

 Deputy Clerk

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 60 filed 07/17/14 page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No: 2:14 CR 83

)

REGGIE SPENCER )

O R D E R

Pursuant to the Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge (DE #36), to which the defendant has waived objection, and subject to this court’s

consideration of the Amended Plea Agreement (DE #33) 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 II of the Indictment (DE #1) is now hereby ACCEPTED,

and defendant is adjudged guilty of the offense as charged therein. A sentencing date

will be set under separate order.

SO ORDERED.

Date: April 23, 2015

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's unaudited financial statements for the quarter ended September 30,
1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                    658
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          658
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            702
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     162
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                540
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              702
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          493
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             219
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           274
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       274
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              274
<EPS-BASIC>                           30.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                           30.95


</TABLE>
#### Porfirio MURILLO-LEDESMA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-71143.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2004.*

Decided April 27, 2004.

Robert L. Lewis, Law Office of Robert L. Lewis, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Hillel Smith, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*506Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Porfirio Murillo-Ledesma, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal because he failed to meet the ten year continuous presence requirement. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo legal determinations of the BIA, *Carrillo-Gonzalez v. INS,*353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition.

Murillo-Ledesma contends that the statements he made to arresting officers regarding his alienage and the date and manner of his entry into the United States should have been suppressed by the IJ as fruit of an unlawful arrest. He further contends that he was denied a full and fair hearing because he was not permitted to present evidence concerning his unlawful arrest.

These contentions fail because generally, the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule does not apply to administrative proceedings, and petitioner has not demonstrated that his case warrants an exception to the rule. *See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza,*468 U.S. 1032, 1040, 104 S.Ct. 3479, 82 L.Ed.2d 778 (1984) (holding that the exclusionary rule generally does not apply to immigration proceedings); *Adamson v. CIR,*745 F.2d 541, 545-46 (9th Cir.1984) (providing an exception for “egregious” Fourth Amendment violations).

Further, we reject as meritless MurilloLedesma’s request to have this case remanded to the BIA for issuance of a new Notice to Appear.

Pursuant to *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), petitioner’s motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the motion for stay of removal was continued based on the government’s filing of a notice of non-opposition, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, to the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Order filed February 8, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-22-00014-CV

___________

TEXAS REIT, LLC, ALI CHOUDHRI, DALIO HOLDINGS I, LLC AND 

DALIO HOLDINGS II, LLC, Appellants

V.

MOKARAM-LATIF WEST LOOP, LTD., Appellee

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2021-27197-A

O R D E R

No reporter’s record has been filed in this case. The official court reporter 

for the 333rd District Court informed this court that appellant had not made 

arrangements for payment for the reporter’s record. On January 18, 2022, the clerk 

of this court notified appellant that we would consider and decide those issues that 

do not require a reporter s record unless appellant, within 15 days of notice, 

provided this court with proof of payment for the record. See Tex. R. App. P.

37.3(c). Appellant filed no reply. 

Accordingly, we order appellant to file a brief in this appeal within twenty

days of the date of this order. If appellant fails to comply with this order, the court 

will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Poissant, and Wilson.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

CHAPEL RIDGE INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-146

)

PETLAND LEASEHOLDING COMPANY, ) 

INC., an Ohio corporation; THE UNKNOWN )

OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AND )

SHAREHOLDERS OF PETLAND LEASING )

COMPANY, INC.; and PETLAND, INC., an )

Ohio corporation; )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This case was removed to this Court from the Allen Superior Court by Defendants based

on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 2, 7.) Along with Petland

Leaseholding Company, Inc. (“PLC”), and Petland, Inc., PLC’s unknown officers, directors, and

shareholders are also Defendants in this case. “But because the existence of diversity

jurisdiction cannot be determined without knowledge of every defendant’s place of citizenship,

‘John Doe’ defendants are not permitted in federal diversity suits.” Howell ex rel. Goerdt v.

Tribune Entm’t Co., 106 F.3d 215, 218 (7th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Defendants appear to

be aware of this, stating in their Amended Notice of Removal that “PLC represents to the Court

that none of its officers, directors, or shareholders are citizens of the State of Indiana.” (Am.

Notice of Removal ¶ 4(d).) 

Defendants’ Amended Notice of Removal, however, is inadequate because Plaintiff

Chapel Ridge Investments, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, is a citizen of

1
California, not Indiana, as its sole member, Johann Lippert, is a California citizen. (Am. Notice

of Removal ¶ 6(a)(ii)); see Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he

citizenship of an LLC for purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its

members.”). As such, whether any of PLC’s officers, directors, or shareholders are citizens of

Indiana is irrelevant to the jurisdictional analysis. Instead, the Court must be advised of whether

any of them are California citizens.

Consequently, Defendants are ORDERED to supplement the record by filing a Second

Amended Notice of Removal on or before June 17, 2013, informing the Court of whether any of

PLC’s officers, directors, or shareholders are citizens of California. 

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 3rd day of June, 2013.

/S/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Brandon Lynn Pope, Appellant

No. 06

- 16

- 00129

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 62nd District Court of Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.
0921400 ). Opinion delivered by J ustice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Brandon Lynn Pope, has adequately indicated his inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JANUARY 27, 2017
BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL )

CORPORATION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No. 1:14-cv-203

)

GENERAL INVESTMENT, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff filed this breach of contract action in this Court based on diversity jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 1.) In response to the Court’s prior Orders (Docket #

4, 6), Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint (Docket # 5) and now a supplement to the

complaint (Docket # 10) to attempt to correct deficiencies and properly allege the jurisdiction of

the parties. Plaintiff, however, still fails to adequately do so. 

Plaintiff’s supplement to the amended complaint is deficient because it fails to properly

allege the jurisdiction of two members of Defendant General Investment, LLC–Tandem

Transport Corporation and Consolidated Transport Systems, Inc. Plaintiff recites that “Tandem

is a corporation authorized and doing business in the State of Indiana,” and that “Consolidated is

a corporation authorized and doing business in the State of Indiana.” (Pl.’s Supplement to Its

Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 7.) 

But a corporation’s citizenship is determined both by its state of incorporation and where

it maintains its principal place of business. N. Trust Co. v. Bunge Corp., 899 F.2d 591, 594 (7th

Cir. 1990) (Corporations “are deemed to be citizens of the state in which they are incorporated

and the state in which they have their principal place of business.”); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). 
As such, the supplement needs to be amended to allege with respect to each Tandem and

Consolidated: (1) its state of incorporation, and (2) where it maintains its principal place of

business. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to filed an amended supplement to the amended

complaint on or before September 30, 2014, properly setting forth the citizenship of the parties. 

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 16th day of September, 2014.

s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 118   filed 12/22/14   page 1 of 7

USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 118   filed 12/22/14   page 2 of 7

USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 118   filed 12/22/14   page 3 of 7

USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 118   filed 12/22/14   page 4 of 7

USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 118   filed 12/22/14   page 5 of 7

USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 118   filed 12/22/14   page 6 of 7

USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 118   filed 12/22/14   page 7 of 7
AO 450 (Rev. 01/09) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Northern District of Indiana

DAVID A. SCOTT, JR.

Plaintiff(s) 

v. Civil Action No. 2:14-CV-107

LEAR CORPORATION

DARRELL HARPER TERMINATED: 11/04/2014

LARRY PAYNE, JR. TERMINATED: 11/04/2014

BARBARA SACHA TERMINATED: 11/04/2014

RYAN BRUCKNER TERMINATED: 11/04/2014

Defendant(s)

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

☐ the Plaintiff(s), recover from the 

Defendant(s) damages 

in the amount of , plus post-judgment interest at the rate of %.

☐ the plaintiff recover nothing, the action is dismissed on the merits, and the defendant 

recover costs from the plaintiff .

X Other: This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

This action was (check one):

☐ tried to a jury with Judge 

presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict.

☐ tried by Judge 

without a jury and the above decision was reached.

X decided by Judge Rudy Lozano on a motion for summary judgment

DATE: 9/28/2017 ROBERT TRGOVICH, CLERK OF COURT

by /s/Jason Schrader 

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00107-RL document 111 filed 09/28/17 page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1994
<CASH>                                          97,835
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,835
<PP&E>                                          27,550
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,550
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,540
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       371,322
<OTHER-SE>                                   (216,782)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,540
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,470
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,811
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,341)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,341)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Hassan RIZK, petitioner, v. John PRELESNIK, Warden.

No. 12-8414.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

ROBERT HOLLAND, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 2:13-CV-491-RL-JEM

)

CERBERUS CAPITAL )

MANAGEMENT LP, et al., )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss DE#28 and

Memorandum DE# 29 [DE 33], filed by Plaintiff Robert Holland on June 19, 2014. Plaintiff

Holland requests that the Court strike a motion and its accompanying memorandum because the

memorandum exceeds the applicable page limits.

Local Rule 7-1(e) provides, in relevant part, that “[s]upporting and response briefs

(excluding tables of contents, tables of authorities, and appendices) ordinarily must not exceed 25

pages.” N.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(e)(1). The memorandum in question is 33 pages in total, but includes

a table of contents and a table of authorities. The text of the memorandum is only 24 pages and thus

falls within the requirements of the Local Rule.

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss DE#28

and Memorandum DE# 29 [DE 33].

 SO ORDERED this 20th day of June, 2014.

s/ John E. Martin 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

Plaintiff, pro se

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 40 filed 06/20/14 page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-615

In Re: JOHN RAGIN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-96-72-2-23AJ)

Submitted: August 12, 1997 Decided: August 28, 1997

Before HALL, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Ragin, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John Ragin petitions this court for a Writ of Mandamus granting the relief sought in his previously filed habeas corpus petition. Ragin asserts the right to this relief based on the district

court's delay in ruling on his request for habeas relief. Subsequent, however, to the filing of this petition for mandamus relief,

the district court issued an order dismissing Ragin's habeas action

without prejudice. Therefore, to the extent that the petition

before this court complains of delay in the district court, that

complaint is now moot. To the extent that Ragin requests relief on

the merits of his habeas petition, mandamus relief is only available if Ragin can show that no other remedy is available to him.

See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987). Ragin's petition asserts no reason why he could not seek review through the

normal appeals process.

Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis but

the petition for a Writ of Mandamus is denied.

PETITION DENIED