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. ) CASE NO.: 1:15-CR-1-TLS-4 

 ) 

CESAR ROSALES ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

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

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 187], filed on May 12, 2016. The Defendant has waived objection to 

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

Recommendation [ECF No. 187] 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 June 1, 2016. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
#### WILLIAMS v. RUTHERFORD REALTY CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 20, 1913.)

Action by Louise L. Williams against the Rutherford Realty Company.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied. Order filed.
Mantel Delance MUBDI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-7398.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of *Alleyne v. United States,* --- U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2151, --- L.Ed. ---- (2013).
AO 450 (Rev. 01/09) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Northern District of Indiana

DEVON W. BORKHOLDER;

DAVID WYNN MILLER;

Plaintiffs 

v. Civil Action No. 3:12cv748 JTM-CAN

HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL 

NETWORK INCORPORATION;

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

9 the plaintiff 

recover from the defendant the amount of 

 dollars $ , which includes prejudgment interest at the rate of % plus postjudgment interest at the rate of % along with costs.

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

recover costs from the plaintiff .

X Other: that this case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

 

 

This action was (check one):

9tried to a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

9tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision was

reached.

X decided by Judge James T. Moody . on a motion for 

 

 

USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 5 filed 04/26/13 page 1 of 2
DATE: April 26, 2013 ROBERT TRGOVICH, CLERK OF COURT

by s/ JDarrah 

 Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 5 filed 04/26/13 page 2 of 2
Timothy NASH, petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 13-6443.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Cuyahoga County, denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Cause No. 2:15-cr-54 

 ) 

NOEL CASTILLO. ) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY 

TO: THE HONORABLE JAMES T. MOODY 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

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

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

States Magistrate Judge, on December 16, 2015, with the written consents of the defendant, 

counsel for the defendant, and counsel for the United States of America. 

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

Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record. 

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

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

Jennifer Chang-Adiga and Maria Lerner, and of Attorney Carrie Castro, counsel for the 

defendant, 

 I FIND as follows: 

1. that the defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the 

plea is offered; 
2 

2. that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not 

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse 

witnesses, and his right against compelled self-incrimination; 

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

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

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

sentencing guidelines but that the court may depart from those guidelines under 

some circumstances; 

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

and is not the result of force or threats or of promises; 

5. that the defendant is competent to plead guilty; 

6. that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a 

prosecution for perjury or false statement; 

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

 I RECOMMEND that the court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty to the offense 

charged in Count 1 of the Indictment and have sentence imposed. A presentence report has been 

ordered. 

 ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2015. 

 /s/ Andrew P. Rodovich 

 United States Magistrate Judge
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), David Rickey, Chief Executive Officer of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation
(the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results 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 (SEC) or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any
filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



/s/    DAVID RICKEYDavid Rickey, Chief Executive Officer




Dated: January 31, 2005
United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana

Hammond Division Case No. 2:13-cv-00099-rlm-jem 

Page 1 of 2

llc

Plaintiff

ip

Defendant

Appearance 

 

n.d. Ind. l.r. 83-5(e) Notice

To the Clerk and All Parties of Record:

ip

Date: October 10, 2013

| 24760-71

Jones Obenchain, llp 

600 Ke yBank Building

202 S. Michigan St.

Post Office Box 4577

South Bend, IN 46634 -4577

574.233.1194 | 574.233.8957 fax

b kubicki@jone sobenchain.com

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-JEM document 30 filed 10/10/13 page 1 of 2
Case No. 2:13-cv-00099-rlm-jem 

Appearance | Page 2 of 2

Certificate of Service

cm/ecf

| 24760-71

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-JEM document 30 filed 10/10/13 page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Pavle Zderic the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Global West Resources, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify 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 my knowledge: (i)the annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company, for the year  ended July  31, 2008, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  By:/s/Pavle ZdericName:Pavle ZdericTitle:Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial OfficerDate:November 13, 2008 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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. This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
MIM Corporation


100 Clearbrook Road


Elmsford, NY 10523







                  
                  
January 28, 2004



Mr. Barry A. Posner


Executive Vice President and


     
General Counsel


MIM Corporation


100 Clearbrook Road


Elmsford, NY 10523









	  	 	  	
Re:     Employment Agreement







	
Dear Barry:



          
Reference is made to the Employment Agreement, dated as of March 1, 1999, by and between MIM Corporation, a Delaware corporation,
and yourself, as amended to date (the "Employment Agreement").  Capitalized terms used herein and not defined shall have the
meaning ascribed thereto in the Employment Agreement.



          
This will confirm our agreement that the Term of the Employment  Agreement is extended for an additional two years through  February
28, 2006.  Except as modified hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.



          
Kindly signify your agreement to the foregoing by signing below.









	 
	 	
Sincerely,


MIM Corporation



By: /s/ Richard H. Friedman
                  
                  
                  
                  
        
        

       Richard H. Friedman, Chairman and CEO


	



Agreed and Accepted as of


the     day of January, 2004:




        /s/ Barry A. Posner
                  
                  
                  
                  
        
        

Barry A. Posner
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1248]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. MG90-3-004]


Trunkline LNG Co.; Notice of Filing

January 12, 1995.
    Take notice that on January 5, 1995, Trunkline LNG Company 
(Trunkline LNG) filed its revised standards of conduct under Order Nos. 
497 et seq.\1\ and Order Nos. 566 et seq.\2\ Trunkline LNG states that 
it is revising its standards of conduct to incorporate the changes 
required by Order No. 566-A and the Commission's December 7, 1994 
order.\3\

    \1\Order No. 497, 53 FR 22139 (June 14, 1988), III FERC Stats. & 
Regs. para.30,820 (1988); Order No. 497-A, order on rehearing, 54 FR 
52781 (December 22, 1989), III FERC Stats. & Regs. para.30,868 
(1989); Order No. 497-B, order extending sunset date, 55 FR 53291 
(December 28, 1990), III FERC Stats. & Regs. para.30,908 (1990); 
Order No. 497-C, order extending sunset date, 57 FR 9 (January 2, 
1992), III FERC Stats. & Regs. para.30,934 (1991); rehearing denied, 
57 FR 5815 (February 18, 1992), 58 FERC para.61,139 (1992); Tenneco 
Gas v. FERC (affirmed in part and remanded in part), 969 F. 2d 1187 
(D.C. Cir. 1992); Order No. 497-D, order on remand and extending 
sunset date, III FERC Stats. & Regs. para.30,958 (December 4, 1992), 
57 FR 58978 (December 14, 1992); Order No. 497-E, order on rehearing 
and extending sunset date, 59 FR 243 (January 4, 1994), 65 FERC 
para.61,381 (December 23, 1993); Order No. 497-F, order denying 
rehearing and granting clarification, 59 FR 15336 (April 1, 1994), 
66 FERC para.61,347 (March 24, 1994); and Order No. 497-G, order 
extending sunset date, 59 FR 32884 (June 27, 1994), III FERC Stats. 
& Regs. para.30,996 (June 17, 1994).
    \2\Standards of Conduct and Reporting Requirements for 
Transportation and Affiliate Transactions, Order No. 566, 59 FR 
32885 (June 27, 1994), III FERC Stats. & Regs. para.30,997 (June 17, 
1994); Order No. 566-A, order on rehearing, 59 FR 52,896 (October 
20, 1994), 69 FERC para.61,044 (October 14, 1994).
    \3\69 FERC para.61,310 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 or 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214 (1994)). All such 
motions to intervene or protest should be filed on or before January 
27, 1995. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining 
the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make 
protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a 
party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on 
file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-1248 Filed 1-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cipriano MUNOZ-PELAYO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-1765.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 1, 2011.

Decided Nov. 3, 2011.

Manish S. Shah, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard H. Parsons, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, A. Brian Threlkeld, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Urbana, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge, ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge.

*721ORDER

After three prior illegal reentries and two prior removals, Cipriano Munoz-Pe-layo illegally reentered the United States again some time after he was removed in 2007. He came to the attention of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials after being arrested for drug possession in 2010. He later pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and was sentenced to 48 months’ imprisonment, 9 months below the bottom of the guidelines range.

Munoz-Pelayo filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer has concluded that the appeal is frivolous and seeks permission to withdraw. See *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Munoz-Pelayo has not filed a response opposing counsel’s motion. See Cir. R. 51(b). We limit our review to the potential issue identified in counsel’s facially adequate brief. See *United States v. Schuh,*289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir.2002).

Counsel represents that Munoz-Pelayo does not want his guilty plea vacated and so appropriately omits discussing the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of the plea. See *United States v. Knox,*287 F.3d 667, 670-71 (7th Cir.2002).

Munoz-Pelayo’s counsel does consider whether Munoz-Pelayo could challenge his sentence, but properly concludes that any such challenge would be frivolous. As counsel notes, we presume that a below-guidelines sentence is reasonable, see *Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 347-56, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); *United States v. Berg,*640 F.3d 239, 255 (7th Cir.2011), and counsel cannot identify any reason to disregard that presumption. The court also appropriately applied the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, discussing Munoz-Pelayo’s criminal history and the seriousness of his repeated attempts to live illegally in the United States.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is Granted and the appeal is Dismissed.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between American International Adjustment Co., Appellant, and Felix Walker et al., Respondents.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (S. Schwartz, J.), entered April 10, 1984, which denied petitioner-appellant’s application to stay arbitration of respondent Walker’s uninsured motorist claim, made pursuant to uninsured motorist indorsement, is unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and disbursements, and the application to stay arbitration is granted, pending determination at a preliminary trial of the issue of the insurance status of the alleged tort-feasor and of the offending vehicle.

On November 24, 1982, an accident occurred involving a vehicle driven by respondent Felix Walker and owned by David Joshua Hacking Corp. and a vehicle owned and operated by Thomas Robert. Walker demanded arbitration, claiming that Robert was uninsured, under Walker’s insurance policy with petitioner American International Adjustment Co. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 75 proceeding to stay the arbitration pending a trial determination of whether Robert was in fact insured by the Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company. In support of the motion, petitioner submitted a police accident report showing code number 161 for Robert, which code number is assigned to Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, a police accident information exchange form, showing that *685Hartford Accident was the insurance carrier for Robert, and Walker’s own accident report, which stated that Hartford Accident was Robert’s insurer. In opposition, Walker submitted a letter from Hartford Accident denying the existence of any insurance policy, a letter from the New York Department of Motor Vehicles revoking Robert’s driving privilege for lack of insurance and several other items.

Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to raise a substantial factual issue as to whether Robert was indeed an uninsured motorist and sufficient to require a stay of the arbitration until that issue is determined at a trial. *(Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. [Bruton],*45 NY2d 871 [1978], *revg on dissenting mem of Justice Silverman,*58 AD2d 551, 553-554.) Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Bloom and Rosenberger, JJ.
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00283-JEM document 6 filed 06/19/15 page 1 of 4
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00283-JEM document 6 filed 06/19/15 page 2 of 4
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00283-JEM document 6 filed 06/19/15 page 3 of 4
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00283-JEM document 6 filed 06/19/15 page 4 of 4
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Charles W. FIELD.

No. D-2713.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Charles W. Field, of Lawrenceville, Georgia, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRESIDENT PURSUANT
TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I,
Patricia Cooke, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Amendment No. 1 to
the Annual Report of Asia Atlantic Resources on Form 10-K for the year ended
April 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-K amendment fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Asia Atlantic Resources.    _/s/ Patricia
Cooke______________________ Patricia Cooke President, Chief
Executive Officer and Director  August 6, 2009
ANNUAL REPORT2012

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

550 17th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20429-9990

FDIC-004-2013

WWW.FDIC.GOV

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

550 17th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20429-9990

FDIC-004-2013

WWW.FDIC.GOV
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's  unaudited  financial  statements  for the quarter ended March 31,
1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                    486
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          486
<PP&E>                                    123
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            609
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     300
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                309
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              609
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          103
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              99
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             4
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         4
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                4
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.49
        

</TABLE>
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1306

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the tax on beer 

to its pre-1991 level. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 15, 2005

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mr. POMEROY) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce 

the tax on beer to its pre-1991 level.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF 1990 TAX INCREASE ON BEER. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 5051(a) 

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to imposi6 tion and rate of tax on beer) is amended by striking ‘‘$18’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘$9’’. 
2

•HR 1306 IH 

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

2 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact3 ment of this Act.

Æ