alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 21, 2009

Decided October 21, 2009

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐4145

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

      Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

SERGIO NAVARRETE,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 07 CR 658‐2

George W. Lindberg,

Judge.

O R D E R

Sergio Navarrete pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess more than five kilograms of

cocaine with intent to distribute, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and the district court

sentenced him to 151 months’ imprisonment.  In his plea agreement he promised to forgo

any appeal of his conviction or sentence.  Navarrete filed a notice of appeal, but his

appointed lawyers move to withdraw because they cannot identify any nonfrivolous

argument to pursue.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).  Navarrete did not respond

to counsel’s submission. See CIR. R. 51(b).  Our review is limited to the potential issues

identified in counsel’s facially adequate brief. United States v. Cano‐Rodriguez, 552 F.3d 637,

638 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973‐74 (7th Cir. 2002).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐4145 Page 2

Counsel begin by telling us that Navarrete does not wish to challenge his guilty plea.

Counsel thus properly refrain from discussing the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the

voluntariness of the plea.  See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671‐72 (7th Cir. 2002).  

Counsel next consider whether Navarrete has any other basis on which to challenge

his sentence.  But the appeal waiver forecloses any argument challenging his sentence

except a claim that the district court relied on a constitutionally impermissible factor at

sentencing or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. See United States v.

Lockwood, 416 F.3d 604, 608 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Bownes, 405 F.3d 634, 637 (7th Cir.

2005).  Neither of these issues applies here.  Navarrete’s appeal waiver stands with his

unchallenged guilty plea, United States v. Cole, 569 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2009); United States

v. Wilson, 481 F.3d 475, 483 (7th Cir. 2007), and any challenge to his sentence would be

frivolous.  

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 28654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13335]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
[AC-31; OTS No. 01611]


First Federal Savings Bank of Champaign-Urbana, Champaign, 
Illinois; Approval of Conversion Application

    Notice is hereby given that on May 11, 1995, the Deputy Assistant 
Director, Corporate Activities Division, Office of Thrift Supervision, 
or her designee, acting pursuant to delegated authority, approved the 
application of First Federal Savings Bank of Champaign-Urbana, 
Champaign, Illinois, to convert to the stock form of organization. 
Copies of the application are available for inspection at the 
Information Services Division, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, and the Central Regional Office, 
Office of Thrift Supervision, 111 Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, 
Illinois 60601-4360.

    Dated: May 25, 1995.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Kimerly M. White,
Corporate Technican.
[FR Doc. 95-13335 Filed 5-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
No. 85-6710.

#### Koenig *v.*Fosheim et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Albert Terrill JONES, petitioner, v. Jorge L. PASTRANA, Warden.

No. 13-7099.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                ALPHA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC., AND SUBSIDIARIES

                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
          For the Quarters Ended January 25, 1998 and January 31, 1999

                                  (Unaudited)
                     (In Thousands, Except per Share Data)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                                                  January 25,           January 31,
                                                                                     1998                   1999
                                                                                -------------           -----------
<S>                                                                             <C>                   <C>
Shares:
     Weighted average common shares outstanding                                         6,693                 6,932
 
     Net common shares issuable on exercise of
        stock options                                                                     132                     2
                                                                                -------------           -----------
Weighted average common and common equivalent
   shares outstanding                                                                   6,825                 6,934
                                                                                =============           ===========
 
Net income                                                                             $  397                $  504
                                                                                =============           ===========
Basic and Diluted Net Income Per Share:
         Basic                                                                         $ 0.06                $ 0.07
                                                                                =============           ===========
         Diluted                                                                       $ 0.06                $ 0.07
                                                                                =============           ===========
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

BRIETTE LAPLAND, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CIVIL NO. 3:14cv1665

)

WILLOW-BROOKES SOLUTIONS, INC., )

)

 Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

On January 21, 2015, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Plaintiff’s motion for

default judgment be granted and that she be awarded $60,565.00, for violations of the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act. Defendant has not filed a response to the Report and

Recommendation.

For the following reasons, the undersigned adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation.

Discussion

With respect to pretrial matters dispositive of a claim or defense, the district court

reviews “de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected

to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Should a party make objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation, such objections must be “specific” and “written.” Id. at 72(b)(2). “The

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. at 72(b)(3).

In the present case, the Magistrate Judge clearly set out the background of the case,

including the eleven alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The

Magistrate Judge noted that even though the Defendant was served with summons and complaint
via certified mail, the Defendant did not respond in any way to Plaintiff’s complaint. After

Plaintiff moved for entry of default judgment, a telephonic status conference was held, at which

Defendant did not appear and the motion for entry of default judgment was referred to the

Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation.

The Magistrate Judge held a hearing on the motion and, again, Defendant did not attend. 

Plaintiff testified and submitted exhibits to the court, supporting her claims. The Magistrate

Judge determined that Plaintiff was entitled to default judgment and, after carefully analyzing the

evidence, further determined that Plaintiff was entitled to damages totaling $60,565.00

As noted, there were no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation and, upon review, the undersigned finds that the Report and Recommendation

is in accordance with the law and therefore will be adopted.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned adopts Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein’s

Report and Recommendation. 

 Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment [DE 8] is hereby GRANTED. Further, the

Defendant is ORDERED to pay the Plaintiff a total of $65,565.00, as detailed in the Report and

Recommendation. 

 

 Entered: March 9 , 2015.

 s/ William C. Lee 

 William C. Lee, Judge

 United States District Court

2
Eun S. KIM, petitioner v. Joshua B. SUSSAL, et al.

No. 12-10428.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

CAROLYN MALONEY c/o DENNY 

MALONEY, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING 

PHARMACY INC. aka NEW ENGLAND 

COMPOUNDING CENTER, et al. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00842-PPS-CAN

JUDGE: PHILIP P. SIMON 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

Pursuant to L.R. 6.1., Defendant Ameridose, LLC (“Defendant”), by counsel, hereby 

move this Court for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, up; to and including 

March 25, 2013. Defendant’s Answer is currently due February 22, 2013. Plaintiff’s counsel 

has been consulted and has no objection to the requested extension 

WHEREFORE, Defendant, by counsel, pray for an Order allowing Defendant up to and 

including March 25, 2013 to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and for all other relief just and 

proper in the premises. 

case 3:12-cv-00842-PPS-CAN document 23 filed 02/21/13 page 1 of 2
2 

013260.000011/1629041.1 

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Knight S. Anderson 

Knight S. Anderson (17216-53) 

Tucker Ellis LLP 

925 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1150 

Cleveland, OH 44115-1414 

Tel: 216.592.5000 

Fax: 216.592.5009 

E-mail: knight.anderson@tuckerellis.com 

Attorney for Defendant Ameridose LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on February 21, 2013 using the ECF system that sent notification of this filing to all ECFregistered counsel of record via e-mail generated by the Court’s ECF system. 

 /s/Knight S. Anderson 

Attorney for Defendant Ameridose, LLC 

case 3:12-cv-00842-PPS-CAN document 23 filed 02/21/13 page 2 of 2
SYSTEMIC

RESOLUTION 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Developments in the Title I Framework
SYSTEMIC

RESOLUTION 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Title I Resolution Planning Overview

2020 SRAC 5

• Joint FDIC and FRB plan reviews:

• Dedicated subject matter experts, working with firms 

• Staff vettings; Agencies' boards decide

• Recent focus on firms' internal governance procedures

• Improvements in firms' resolvability:

• Resolution preparedness incorporated into regular management 

decisions

• Resolution capabilities focus

• Updated rulemaking and guidance for public comment
SYSTEMIC

RESOLUTION 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

U.S. GSIB Feedback Letters and Critical Operations Refresh

2020 SRAC 6

• December 2019: Agencies provided feedback letters to U.S. GSIBs on 

July 2019 plan submissions.

• No deficiencies; certain firm shortcomings

• "Significant progress" across financial and operational capabilities

• Continued emphasis on capabilities testing

• January-June 2020: Agencies reviewed "critical operations," which 

are operations at certain firms whose failure or discontinuance would 

threaten U.S. financial stability.

• Critical operation identifications also inform Title II readiness

• Agencies plan for the next review to include a broader evaluation of the framework 

used to identify critical operations
SYSTEMIC

RESOLUTION 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Amended Resolution Plan Rule

2020 SRAC 7

• Issued October 2019. Plan content is differentiated based on size and firm's systemic 

risk to the U.S. Three types:

• Full plan: generally does not modify current requirements

• Targeted plan: new type of plan containing a subset of full plan information

• Core elements: capital, liquidity, firm’s plan for executing a recapitalization

• Material changes since last full plan submission

• Targeted areas of interest identified by the Agencies

• Reduced plan: describes material changes since last plan

• Agencies do not prescribe resolution strategies for any firm.

• Agencies provided targeted plan notices to U.S. GSIBs in July 2020. Plans to include 

core elements, material changes, and lessons learned from responses to COVID-19.
SYSTEMIC

RESOLUTION 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Amended Rule Filing Groups

2020 SRAC 8

Three-year cycle

Reduced plans

Three-year cycle

Alternating full and targeted plans 

Two-year cycle 

Alternating full and 

targeted plans

U.S. GSIBs Firms other than U.S. GSIBs meeting Cat 

II/III criteria (includes domestic and 

foreign banking organizations)

FBOs with 

worldwide assets > 

$250B not subject 

to Cat II/III 

standards

Biennial Filers Triennial Full Filers Triennial Reduced 

Filers

Category I Category II Category III Other FBOs
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Polaris Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), does hereby
certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the yearly period ended December 31, 2008 (the
“Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
March 30, 2009





/s/ Marc ByronMarc
      ByronChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer and Principal Accounting and Financial
      Officer)





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.
Jeriel Malachi BROOKS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6775.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Walter H. CARY III, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D19-1860

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 7, 2019

Walter H. Cary III, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

In light of Petitioner's pending direct appeal in case 1D19-1123, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.

Rowe, Makar, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1647 

To require that general Federal elections be held during the first consecutive 

Saturday and Sunday in November, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 14, 2005 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida (for himself, Mr. HONDA, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ms. 

LEE, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. STARK, and Mr. 

JEFFERSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To require that general Federal elections be held during 

the first consecutive Saturday and Sunday in November, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Election Weekend 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CHANGE IN GENERAL ELECTION DATE. 

7 (a) ELECTORS.—Section 1 of title 3, United States 

8 Code, is amended by striking ‘‘on the Tuesday next after 
2 

•HR 1647 IH 

1 the first Monday in November’’ and inserting ‘‘on the first 

2 consecutive Saturday and Sunday in November’’. 

3 (b) CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS.—Section 25 of the 

4 Revised Statutes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 7) is 

5 amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 25. The first consecutive Saturday and Sunday 

7 in November in every even numbered year are established 

8 as the days for the election, in each of the States and Ter9 ritories of the United States, of Representatives and Dele10 gates to the Congress commencing on the 3d day of Janu11 ary thereafter.’’. 

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall apply with respect to regularly scheduled 

14 general elections for Federal office held in November 2006 

15 and each second year thereafter. 

16 SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING TREATMENT OF 

17 DAY BY PRIVATE EMPLOYERS. 

18 It is the sense of Congress that private employers in 

19 the United States should give their employees a day off 

20 on either day of the first consecutive Saturday and Sunday 

21 in November in 2006 and each second year thereafter to 

22 enable the employees to cast votes in the Federal and 

23 other elections held on that day. 

Æ
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12523]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER95-802-000]

IEP Power Marketing, L.L.C.; Notice of Issuance of Order

May 17, 1995.
    On March 22 and April 4, 1995, IEP Power Marketing, L.L.C. (IPM) 
submitted for filing a rate schedule under which IPM will engage in 
wholesale electric power and energy transactions as a marketer. IPM 
also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, 
IPM requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR 
Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability by IPM.

    On May 11, 1995, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Applications, Office of Electric Power Regulation, granted 
requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by IPM should file a motion to intervene or 
protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North 
Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 
211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).

    Absent a request for hearing within this period, IPM is authorized 
to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a 
guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of 
another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some 
lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.

    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of IPM's issuances of securities or assumptions of 
liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is June 12, 1995.
    Copies of the full text of the order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, Room 3308, 941 North Capitol 
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95-12523 Filed 5-22-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
Tracy Alan ZORNES, petitioner, v. MINNESOTA.

No. 13-6722.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Minnesota denied.
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00145-JD-CAN   document 79   filed 05/04/16   page 1 of 4

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00145-JD-CAN   document 79   filed 05/04/16   page 2 of 4

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00145-JD-CAN   document 79   filed 05/04/16   page 3 of 4

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00145-JD-CAN   document 79   filed 05/04/16   page 4 of 4
In re Said GSSIME, petitioner.

No. 13-5467.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

            STEWART INFORMATION SERVICES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                         EXECUTIVE OFFICERS' BONUS PLANS
                                DECEMBER 31, 2003

The following summarizes the terms of the bonus arrangements approved by our
Compensation Committee with respect to our executive officers:

MALCOLM S. MORRIS, as Chairman of the Board and Co-Chief Executive Officer,
shall receive in addition to his salary, 1% on the first $20,000,000 of the
consolidated income before taxes of Stewart Title Guaranty Company as reported
to its stockholder, .75% of the profits from $20,000,001 to $40,000,000, .50% of
the profits from $40,000,001 to $60,000,000 and .25% of the profits exceeding
$60,000,000. For the calendar year 2003, Mr. Malcolm S. Morris shall receive no
less than $250,000 in bonus compensation.

STEWART MORRIS, JR., as President and Co-Chief Executive Officer, shall receive
in addition to his salary, 1% on the first $20,000,000 of the consolidated
income before taxes of Stewart Title Guaranty Company as reported to its
stockholder, .75% of the profits from $20,000,001 to $40,000,000, .50% of the
profits from $40,000,001 to $60,000,000 and .25% of the profits exceeding
$60,000,000. For the calendar year 2003, Mr. Stewart Morris, Jr. shall receive
no less than $250,000 in bonus compensation.

CARLOSS MORRIS, as Chairman of the Executive Committee, shall receive in
addition to his salary, 1% of the first $16,500,000 of the consolidated income
before taxes of Stewart Title Guaranty Company as reported to its stockholder.
For the calendar year 2003, Mr. Carloss Morris shall receive no more than
$165,000 in bonus compensation.

STEWART MORRIS, as Vice Chairman of the Executive Committee, shall receive in
addition to his salary, 1% of the first $16,500,000 of the consolidated income
before taxes of Stewart Title Guaranty Company as reported to its stockholder.
For the calendar year 2003, Mr. Stewart Morris shall receive no more than
$165,000 in bonus compensation.

MAX CRISP, as Executive Vice President - Finance, shall receive in addition to
his salary, .5% of the first $50,000,000 of the consolidated income before taxes
of Stewart Title Guaranty Company as reported to its stockholder, .40% of the
profits from $50,000,001 to $75,000,000, .30% of the profits from $75,000,001 to
$100,000,000 and .20% of the profits exceeding $100,000,000. For the calendar
year 2003, Mr. Crisp shall receive no less than $135,000 in bonus compensation
and his bonus may not exceed 75% of the total base plus bonus earned by a Chief
Executive Officer.