alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6370
STACY L. EWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-622-AM) Submitted: June 30, 2004 Decided: August 10, 2004 Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stacy L. Ewell, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Stacy L. Ewell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ewell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
* Pursuant to 5 THC IR . 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________________ No.97-60679 Summary Calendar

______________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHARLES FERRELL, Defendant-Appellant.

------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:97-CR-67-ALL

------------------- December 2, 1998 Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * AFFIRMED. See5 TH C IR . R. 47.6.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. W ALTER

R OY YOUNG, d.b.a . W a lte r R . Young, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. Nos. 14-10522

14-10523 D.C . Nos. 2:12-c r-00837-DGC 2:13-cr-01653-DGC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Dav id G. C am

pbe ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 13, 2016 ** B e fore : FARRIS, TALLM AN, a n d B YB EE, C i rc uit Judge s. In the se c onsolida

te d a ppe a ls, W a lte r R o y

Young a ppe a ls his jury -tria l c onvic tion a

nd 18-m o n th se nte nc e for be ing a fe lon in posse ssion of a

fire arm an d am m unition, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 922(g)(1) a nd 924(a )(2), and the 

# FIL ED APR 18 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re voc ation of proba tion a nd 12-m onth se nte nc e im pose d the re upon. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Young’ s c ounse l ha s file d a brie f sta ting tha t the re are n o grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra wa s c ounse l of re c ord. W e hav e provide d Young theopportunity

to file a pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d . Our inde pe nde nt re v i e w of the re c ord pursua n t to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a rgua ble grounds for re lie f on dire c t a ppe a l. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. AFFIRM E D.

14 - 1 05 2 2 & 1 4 - 1 0 5 2 3 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 2:15-CR-19

)

RICHARD ROWE )

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE 

JURY TRIAL AND FINAL PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE

Comes now the Defendant, Richard Rowe, by counsel, James N. Thiros, and

moves the Court to continue the jury trial presently scheduled for January 25, 2016, and

in support thereof represents to the Court the following:

1. That the jury trial of the above cause is presently scheduled to begin on

January 25, 2016, at 8:00 a.m., before the Honorable Rudy Lozano, and the Final PreTrial Conference is scheduled for January 8, 2016 at 11:30 a.m. in front of the Honorable

John Martin.

2. The Defendant and his counsel need additional time to complete a review of

the discovery as well as a proposed plea agreement which was recently tendered by the

United States of America.

3. The defendant has been advised and understands that the delay in proceeding

to trial, occasioned by a continuance granted in response to this requests, will be

excluded for purposes of calculating a trial setting under the Speedy Trial Act (18 USC

3161 et seq) and the U.S. Constitution.

4. That Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas McGrath, has been informed
of the filing of this motion to continue, and has indicated that the Government has no

objection to a continuance of approximately thirty (30) days.

5. That the granting of a continuance in this cause is excludable under 18 USC

§3161(h)(8)(A), as the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best

interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Richard Rowe, by counsel, James N. Thiros, 

respectfully requests this Court to grant a continuance of the Jury Trial in this matter

presently scheduled to begin on January 25, 2016, and the Final Pre-Trial Conference

scheduled on January 8, 2016, and for all relief, just and proper in the premises.

Respectfully submitted,

 s/JAMES N. THIROS 

James N. Thiros #14408-45

Thiros and Thiros, P.C.

200 E. 90th Drive

Merrillville, Indiana 46410

Ph. (219) 769-1600

Fax (219) 738-3769

E-mail: jim@thiros.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on January 6, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the Court using the CM/CM/ECF system which sent notification of such filing

to Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas McGrath.

 s/JAMES N. THIROS 

James N. Thiros #14408-45

Thiros and Thiros, P.C.

200 E. 90th Drive

Merrillville, Indiana 46410

Ph. (219) 769-1600

Fax (219) 738-3769

E-mail: jim@thiros.com
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1828 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on (S)-Alpha-Hydroxy-3- 

phenoxybenzeneacetonitrile. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on (S)-AlphaHydroxy-3-phenoxybenzeneacetonitrile. 

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

3 SECTION 1. (S)-ALPHA-HYDROXY-3- 

4 PHENOXYBENZENEACETONITRILE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.57 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

7 by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 
2 

•HR 1828 IH 

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
EX-35.2
CERTIFICATION

Solely with respect to the Sawgrass Mills Mall Portfolio Pari Passu Companion
Loan held by J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust
2007-CIBC20 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-CIBC20
(the "Trust") and serviced under the J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage
Securities Trust 2007-LDP12 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2007-LDP12 Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Pooling and Servicing
Agreement")
Annual Compliance Statement per PSA Section 11.09


I, Michael F. Cocanougher, on behalf of J.E. Robert Company, Inc., as special
servicer (the "Certifying Servicer"), certify to J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial
Mortgage Securities Corp. and its officers, directors and affiliates, solely
with respect to the Sawgrass Mills Mall Portfolio Pari Passu Companion Loan held
by J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2007-CIBC20
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-CIBC20 and serviced
under the J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2007-LDP12
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-LDP12 Pooling and
Servicing Agreement, and with the knowledge and intent that they will rely upon
this certification, that:

1. I have reviewed the Certifying Servicer's activities during the preceding
   calendar year or portion thereof and the Certifying Servicer's performance
   under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement; and

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Certifying Servicer has
   fulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
   in all material respects throughout such year or portion thereof.

Date: March 4, 2008

J.E. ROBERT COMPANY, INC.

By: /s/ Michael F. Cocanougher
Michael F. Cocanougher
Director


(page)


Compliance Certification, Section 11.09
Solely with respect to the Sawgrass Mills Mall Portfolio Pari Passu Companion
Loan held by J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2007-CIBC20
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-CIBC20 (the "Trust")
and serviced under the J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust
2007-LDP12 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-LDP12
Pooling and Servicing Agreement
March 4, 2008


With copies to:

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.
ATTN: Dennis Schuh, Vice President
270 Park Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1400 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1400

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for aiming 
          laser pointers at airplanes, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against 
Lasers Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST AIMING A LASER POINTER AT AN AIRCRAFT.

    (a) Offense.--Chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 39. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft
    ``(a) Whoever knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an 
aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or 
at the flight path of such an aircraft, shall be fined under this title 
or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
    ``(b) As used in this section, the term `laser pointer' means any 
device designed or used to amplify electromagnetic radiation by 
stimulated emission that emits a beam designed to be used by the 
operator as a pointer or highlighter to indicate, mark, or identify a 
specific position, place, item, or object.''.
    (b) Amendment to Table of Sections.--The table of sections at the 
beginning of chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new item:

``39. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1400

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for aiming 
          laser pointers at airplanes, and for other purposes.
```
#### Diane Chodos et al., Appellants, v Robert S. Flanzer, Respondent.

— In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated March 21, 1983, which, upon a jury verdict, found in favor of defendant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

After extensive expert testimony concerning the procedures used by defendant in treating plaintiff wife’s periodontal disease, the jury found that defendant was not negligent. “The weight to be afforded the conflicting testimony of experts is a matter peculiarly within the province of the jury” *(Sternemann v Langs,*93 AD2d 819). On this record, it cannot be said that the jury verdict is against the weight of the evidence *(Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493; *O'Boyle v Avis Rent-A-Car Sys.,*78 AD2d 431; *Palmeri v Spies,*69 AD2d 968; *Haftel v Kestler,*53 AD2d 572).

Plaintiffs’ claim that the court should not have charged the jury on the issue of contributory negligence in mitigation of damages is without merit since there was a reasonable view of the evidence to support such a charge *(Nallan v Helmsley-Spear,*
      *772
      *Inc., 50*NY2d 507). In any event, any error in the court’s contributory negligence charge would have been harmless. The verdict makes it clear that the issue of contributory negligence was never reached as the jury determined that plaintiffs failed to prove that defendant was negligent *(Young v Hackett,*49 AD2d 1013; *Benoit v Travaglini,*43 AD2d 587, *affd*35 NY2d 799). O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### ELLEFSON, Respondent, v. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

Action by Selma Ellefson against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
Wayne CHARLES, et al., petitioners, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.

No. 12-1063.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

AMANDA N. SMITH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-CV-326

)

COVIDIEN, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

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

Covidien, LLC, based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 1.) 

The Notice of Removal alleges that Plaintiff Amanda Smith is a citizen of the state of Indiana,

and that Defendant is “a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, with its principal

place of business in Massachusetts.” (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 3-4.)

But Defendant Covidien, LLC, presents by name as a limited liability company, not a

corporation. For purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company’s

citizenship is different than that of a corporation. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531,

533 (7th Cir. 2007). 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.” N. Trust Co. v.

Bunge Corp., 899 F.2d 591, 594 (7th Cir. 1990); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Conversely, a

limited liability company’s citizenship “for purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction is the

citizenship of its members.” Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998). 

Therefore, if Defendant Covidien, LLC, is a limited liability company as its name

reflects, the Court must be advised of the citizenship of all its members to ensure that none of the
members share a common citizenship with Plaintiff. Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d

346, 347 (7th Cir. 2006). Moreover, citizenship must be “traced through multiple levels” for

those members of Covidien who are a partnership or a limited liability company, as anything less

can result in a dismissal or remand for want of jurisdiction. Mut. Assignment & Indem. Co. v.

Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004). 

Therefore, Defendant is ORDERED to file on or before November 4, 2014, an amended

notice of removal that properly recites its citizenship, tracing it through all applicable layers of

ownership.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 21st day of October, 2014.

/S/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
#### LINDLEY, Respondent, v. CAMPBELL, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 27, 1912.)

Action by Ernest D. Lindley against Charles A. Campbell.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

KRUSE and ROBSON, JJ., dissent, upon the ground that the «referee adopted an improper measure of damages.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of KBS Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc. (the
Registrant) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, David E. Snyder, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge and belief:



|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 Registrant.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 11, 2011



/S/    DAVID E.
SNYDERDavid E. SnyderChief Financial Officer
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 the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of Cambridge
Holdings, Ltd. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, the
undersigned Gregory Pusey, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief:




(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 Company.




November
      16, 2009
            By:
            /s/
      Gregory PuseyGregory
      PuseyPresident,
      Treasurer and Director








*****






A signed
original of the 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.
Randy WHITE, Warden, petitioner, v. Robert Keith WOODALL.

No. 12-794.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 27, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 1:15-cr-00054-TLS-SLC

)

DARNELL BONTEMPO )

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 Judge

Susan Collins, on October 13, 2016, with the written consents of Defendant, counsel for

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 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 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 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 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 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 Defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty and that Defendant

be adjudged guilty of the offense charged as to cocaine and marijuana in the single-count

Indictment, and have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this

Findings and Recommendation be accepted and 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 13th day of October 2016.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2