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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-40

)

NICOLE A. ANDREWS )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on October 25, 2013, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charge against her to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands her right to trial by jury, to persist in her plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
her right against compelled self-incrimination;

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

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

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that her answers may later be used against her in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

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

Defendant be adjudged guilty of Count 3 as charged in the three-count Indictment, and have

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

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 25th day of October, 2013.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
#### Norcott CORBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel A. SENKOWSKI, Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, L. Turner, Senior Counselor at Clinton Correctional Facility; and Lt. Baldwin, Tier Hearing Officer in Charge at Clinton Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-0306.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 5, 2004.

Caroline Bartlett, L.A.R. 46(e); Desiree A. DiCorcia, L.A.R. 46(e) (Jon Romberg, Supervising Attorney), Seton Hall University School of Law Center for Social Justice, Newark N.J., for Appellant.

Edward Lindner, Assistant Solicitor General (Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, Andrea Oser, Assistant Solicitor General, on the brief), for Appellees.

Present: STRAUB, POOLER, and B.D. PARKER, Jr., Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Norcott Corby, a New York State inmate, appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissing, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), his civil rights complaint. Corby alleges that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when defendant prison officials assigned him to work as a porter, a position involving heavy lifting, despite his complaint that he had been injured in an automobile accident, was in pain, continued to receive treatment, and could not lift heavy weights.

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of appellate issues. We affirm because Corby failed to adequately allege the subjective prong of an Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim. Corby acknowledges that defendant Turner told him to obtain medical documentation from the prison doctor and does not claim that he offered documentation from the prison doctor or any other doctor to any prison employee prior to being asked to lift a heavy weight. *See Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 842, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (holding that a prison official acts with deliberate indifference when he has “knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm” and citing as an example of deliberate indifference the official’s exposure to documentation concerning the risk).

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint.
Naga PILLA, petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General.

No. 12-1260.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 12, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

HAROLD BRUCE SHEEHAN, II, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CAUSE NO. 1:14-cv-00324-WCL-SLC

v. )

)

NOBLE COUNTY SHERIFF’S )

DEPARTMENT, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Harold Bruce Sheehan, II, a pro se prisoner, filed a motion asking to enlarge the

deadline for filing an amended complaint so that he can add additional defendants who are

currently unknown. (DE 60). This case is proceeding on claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

that the Defendants used excessive force against him and denied him medical treatment on

October 16, 2013. Indiana’s two-year limitations period for personal injury suits applies to §

1983 claims. Behavioral Inst. of Ind., LLC v. Hobart City of Common Council, 406 F.3d 926,

929 (7th Cir. 2005). Therefore, the deadline for filing a complaint raising claims arising out of

those events was October 16, 2015, unless the amended complaint relates back to the original

filing. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C)(ii) requires that an added defendant “knew

or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake

concerning the proper party’s identity.” “[T]he mistake requirement is independent from

whether the purported substitute party knew that action would be brought against him.” King v.

One Unknown Fed. Corr. Officer, 201 F.3d 910, 914 (7th Cir. 2000). “[I]n the absence of a

mistake in the identification of the proper party, it is irrelevant . . . whether or not the purported
substitute party knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against

him.” Wood v. Worachek, 618 F.2d 1225, 1230 (7th Cir. 1980). 

“It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to determine the proper party to sue and to do so before

the statute of limitations expires. A plaintiff’s ignorance or misunderstanding about who is

liable for his injury is not a ‘mistake’ as to the defendant’s ‘identity.’” Hall v. Norfolk S. Ry.

Co., 469 F.3d 590, 596 (7th Cir. 2006). “[P]laintiffs cannot, after the statute of limitations

period, name as defendants individuals that were unidentified at the time of the original pleading. 

Not knowing a defendant’s name is not a mistake under Rule 15.” Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d

688, 696 (7th Cir. 2008). Therefore it would be futile to permit Sheehan to amend his complaint

to add additional defendants. 

For these reasons, the motion (DE 60) to enlarge the deadline for filing an amended

complaint is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

 Entered this 14th day of January 2016.

 /s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6460

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KELVIN FLEMING,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:96-cr-00031-JCC)

Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 27, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin Fleming appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion to correct his sentence. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Fleming,

No. 1:96-cr-00031-JCC (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 24, 2006 & entered

Feb. 27, 2006). 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
John Randall FUTCH, petitioner, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS.

No. 12-8997.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
#### POLLITZ v. WABASH R. CO. SAME v. EQUITABLE TRUST CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 6, 1913.)

Actions by James Pollitas against the Wabash Railroad Company, and against .the Equitable Trust Company.

No opinions. Motions granted, with $10 cmsts. Orders filed, gee, also 154 App. Div. 935, 939, 139 N. Y. Supp. 1140.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 101 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12874]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; SI Diamond Technology, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given, that on March 21, 1995, pursuant to the 
National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 
4301 et seq. (``the Act''), SI Diamond Technology, Inc., for itself and 
on behalf of its members, has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) the 
nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties are: 
SI Diamond Technology, Inc., Houston, TX; and Supertex, Inc., 
Sunnyvale, CA. The purpose of this joint venture is to develop and 
demonstrate diamond diode field emission display process technology 
needed for production of a 10'', full color, VGA, flat panel display. 
The activities of this Joint Venture project will be partially funded 
by an award from the Advanced Technology Program, National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-12874 Filed 5-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Orande FORDE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7188.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Amendment to the Deferred Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10(yy) 
  
 AMENDMENT TO DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS 
 OF THE BANK OF NEW YORK COMPANY, INC. 
  
 WHEREAS, the Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors of The
Bank of New York Company, Inc. (the “Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan”) was adopted by the Board of Directors of The Bank of New York Company, Inc. (the “Company”), effective as of December 1, 1993; and 
  
 WHEREAS, Section 7(a) of the Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan
provides that the Board of Directors of the Company may amend the Plan at any time; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company desires to adopt an amendment to the Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan; 
  

NOW, THEREFORE, the Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan is hereby amended effective as of November 12, 2002, by adding a new Section 4(d) to
read as follows: 
  
 (d) The maximum number of shares of Company
Stock available under the Plan shall be 250,000. 
  
 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, The Bank of New York Company, Inc. has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officers this 9th day of December, 2002. 
  
 /s/    Thomas A. Renyi 
         Thomas A. Renyi 
  
 ATTEST: 
  
 /s/    Patricia A. Bicket 
         Patricia A. Bicket 
  

 -1-
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NOS. 2-02-501-CR

	        2-02-502-CR

	        2-02-503-CR

NAVORRIS DIONNE SMALL	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant Navorris Dionne Small appeals from his convictions for aggravated robbery and possession of a controlled substance.  In a single point on appeal, appellant complains about the following jury argument by the State:

		[PROSECUTOR]:  She [appellant’s counsel] wants to talk about fingerprints.  Did she bring you anybody to refute what Teague talked about?

		[DEFENSE COUNSEL]:  Objection, burden of proof is not on the defendant. . . .

		. . . . 

		[PROSECUTOR]:  Anybody to come in here and refute that?  You know, I talked to you in voir dire about subpeona power and all that.  We would have loved to hear from these people.  We could have brought you everybody in the Starbucks Restaurant that night.  She had ample opportunity.  We’d be here until next week.  We brought you pieces to a puzzle.

	Since appellant objected and received a ruling, he preserved this issue for review.  See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1173 (1997); Coggeshall v. State, 961 S.W.2d 639, 642 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, pet. ref’d).  Under case law, the State may “comment on an accused’s failure to produce testimony from sources other than himself when it is relevant to a disputed issue.”  See Harris v. State, Nos. 2-02-409-CR, 2-02-410-CR, 2003 WL 22725590, at *8 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 20, 2003, pet. filed).  Additionally, the State may comment on the defendant’s subpeona power “if it refers to the defendant’s failure to produce evidence from other sources.”  Id.  Therefore, we conclude and hold that this argument is permissible.  We overrule appellant’s point and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

									PER CURIAM

PANEL F:	LIVINGSTON, HOLMAN, and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  January 22, 2004
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 Annual Report of Platinum Studios, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott Mitchell Rosenberg, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

A signed original 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.

April 15, 2009

/s/ Scott Mitchell RosenbergScott Mitchell RosenbergChief Executive Officer andChairman

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 14 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 14

To limit the United States share of assessments for the United Nations 
                            regular budget.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2005

 Mr. Hayworth introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                  Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To limit the United States share of assessments for the United Nations 
                            regular budget.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON THE UNITED STATES SHARE OF ASSESSMENTS FOR 
              UNITED NATIONS REGULAR BUDGET.

    Section 11 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22 
U.S.C. 287e-3) is amended by striking ``22 percent of the total of all 
assessed contributions for that budget'' and inserting ``the largest 
assessed contribution of any other permanent member country of the 
United Nations Security Council''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

HENRY KLEYWEG and CLAUDIA

KLEYWEG,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and BAC HOME

LOANS SERVICING, LP.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. _____________________

Removed from Porter Superior Court for

the State of Indiana,

Cause No. 64D01-1403-PL-2699

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record:

I, the below-signed, state that pursuant to N.D. Ind. L.R. 83.5(g), I have read and will

abide by the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, including

Appendix B: Standards for Professional Conduct Within the Seventh Federal Judicial Circuit. I

declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for Defendant, Bank of America, N.A.

Respectfully submitted,

FROST BROWN TODD LLC

By: /s/ Michael A. Rogers

Michael A. Rogers, #28038-29

Attorneys for Defendant,

Bank of America, N.A.

case 2:14-cv-00138-JD-PRC document 2 filed 04/23/14 page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of April, 2014, a copy of the foregoing was filed

electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following parties by operation of the

Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.

and

by 1st Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the following:

Blake N. Dahl

Fred W. Grady & Associates, PC

750 South Washington Street

Suite 1

Valparaiso, IN 46383

/s/ Michael A. Rogers

FROST BROWN TODD LLC

201 North Illinois Street, Suite 1900

P.O. Box 44961

Indianapolis, IN 46244-0961

Phone: 317-237-3800

Fax: 317-237-3900

mrogers@fbtlaw.com

INDLibrary2 BT07586.0616308 1294384v1

case 2:14-cv-00138-JD-PRC document 2 filed 04/23/14 page 2 of 2
Carlos TREVINO, petitioner, v. Rick THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 11-10189.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for appointment of counsel granted. Warren A. Wolf, Esquire, of San Antonio, Texas, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.
Exhibit 32

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Anthony K. Welch, the Chief Executive Officer of Modern Technology Corp.(the "Company"), in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that theCompany's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31,2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: February 23, 2006                      ***/s/ Anthony K. Welch                   ***

                                                           Anthony K. Welch, CEO

----

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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

I, Robert Church, the Chief Financial Officer of Modern Technology Corp. (the"Company"), in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that the Company'sQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: February 23, 2006                       ***/s/ Robert Church                       ***

                                                           Robert Church, CFO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:15-CR-34-TLS-1 

 ) 

TODD J. GREEN ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 43], filed on February 19, 2016. The Defendant has waived objection 

to the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings 

and Recommendation [ECF No. 43] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. 

Subject to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count Two (2) of the Indictment is 

hereby accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

 The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED on March 8, 2016. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT