alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-7   filed 07/14/15   page 1 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-7   filed 07/14/15   page 2 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-7   filed 07/14/15   page 3 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-7   filed 07/14/15   page 4 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-7   filed 07/14/15   page 5 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-7   filed 07/14/15   page 6 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-7   filed 07/14/15   page 7 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-7   filed 07/14/15   page 8 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-7   filed 07/14/15   page 9 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-7   filed 07/14/15   page 10 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-7   filed 07/14/15   page 11 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-7   filed 07/14/15   page 12 of 12
#### STEIN v. FELT et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 20. 1913.)

Action by Alexander Stein against Em-ily L. Felt, impleaded with others.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied. Order filed,
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00001-TLS-SLC document 318 filed 12/10/18 page 1 of 15
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00001-TLS-SLC document 318 filed 12/10/18 page 2 of 15
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00001-TLS-SLC document 318 filed 12/10/18 page 3 of 15
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00001-TLS-SLC document 318 filed 12/10/18 page 4 of 15
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00001-TLS-SLC document 318 filed 12/10/18 page 5 of 15
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00001-TLS-SLC document 318 filed 12/10/18 page 6 of 15
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00001-TLS-SLC document 318 filed 12/10/18 page 7 of 15
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00001-TLS-SLC document 318 filed 12/10/18 page 8 of 15
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00001-TLS-SLC document 318 filed 12/10/18 page 9 of 15
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00001-TLS-SLC document 318 filed 12/10/18 page 10 of 15
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00001-TLS-SLC document 318 filed 12/10/18 page 11 of 15
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00001-TLS-SLC document 318 filed 12/10/18 page 12 of 15
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00001-TLS-SLC document 318 filed 12/10/18 page 13 of 15
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00001-TLS-SLC document 318 filed 12/10/18 page 14 of 15
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00001-TLS-SLC document 318 filed 12/10/18 page 15 of 15
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         990,412
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  420,173
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,155
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,537,580
<PP&E>                                       9,149,867
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,677,432
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,048,766
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          248,291
<BONDS>                                        440,763
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,359,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,048,766
<SALES>                                        960,502
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               971,791
<CGS>                                          384,512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  744,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                205,252
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            205,252
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   205,252
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        7
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        7
        


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

RUTH A. HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARAVAN FACILITIES 

MANAGEMENT L.L.C. ,

Defendant.

Case No.1:14-CV-00130-JTM-RBC

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, by counsel, and Defendant, by counsel, hereby stipulate and agree that the cause 

of action should be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. The parties further stipulate and 

agree that no motion for costs and/or attorneys’ fees will be brought by Plaintiff or Defendant 

with regard to the claims now dismissed herein, as each party will bear its own fees and costs.

Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Ilene M. Smith /s/ Jane Ann Himsel 

Counsel for Plaintiff

Christopher C. Myers, #10043-02 

Ilene M. Smith, #22818-02

Rachel Guin-Lowry, #31722-02

CHIRSTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES 

809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400

Fort Wayne, IN 46802-2307

Counsel for Defendant

Jane Ann Himsel, #15192-49

Emily L. Connor, #27402-49

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

111 Monument Circle, Suite 702 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

jhimsel@littler.com

cmyers@myers-law.com econnor@littler.com

ismith@myers-law.com 

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00130-JTM-RBC document 24 filed 01/06/15 page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of
Fushi International, Inc. (the "Company"), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of his knowledge:

(1) The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter
ended March 31, 2006 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.

Dated: May 15, 2006

/s/ Li Fu
--------------------------------
Li Fu
Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Wenbing Chris Wang
---------------------
Wenbing Chris Wang
Chief Financial Officer

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Fushi International, Inc. and will be retained by Fushi
International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1340 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the reporting fee payable 

by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to educational institutions for reports or certifications which such educational institutions are required 

by law or regulation to submit to the Secretary. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2005 

Mr. EVANS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the 

reporting fee payable by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to educational institutions for reports or certifications which such educational institutions are required 

by law or regulation to submit to the Secretary. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF REPORTING FEE 

4 PAYABLE TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. 

5 (a) INCREASE.—Subsection (c) of section 3684 of 

6 title 38, United States Code, is amended— 
2 

•HR 1340 IH 

1 (1) by striking ‘‘$7’’ in the second sentence and 

2 inserting ‘‘$10’’; and 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘$11’’ in such second sentence 

4 and inserting ‘‘$15’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

6 subsection (a) shall apply to fees payable under section 

7 3684(c) of such title during months beginning after the 

8 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 136 

To provide that Executive Order 13166 shall have no force or effect, and 

to prohibit the use of funds for certain purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2005 

Mr. KING of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To provide that Executive Order 13166 shall have no force 

or effect, and to prohibit the use of funds for certain 

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. NULLIFICATION OF EFFECT OF EXECUTIVE 

4 ORDER. 

5 Executive Order 13166, ‘‘Improving Access to Serv6 ices for Persons with Limited English Proficiency’’ (Au7 gust 16, 2000; 65 Fed. Reg. 50121), is null and void and 

8 shall have no force or effect. 
2 

•HR 136 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FUNDS FOR CER2 TAIN PURPOSES. 

3 No funds appropriated pursuant to any provision of 

4 law may be used to promulgate or enforce any executive 

5 order that creates an entitlement to services provided in 

6 any language other than English. 

Æ
|   | 2002   | 2003   | 2004   | 2005   | 2006 |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|------|
| $2,303 | $2,095 | $2,148 | $2,440 | $2,392 |
| $1,190 | $1,035 | $1,112 | $1,052 | $998   |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-63

)

RAUL RESENDIZ )

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 February 6, 2014, 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 him to which the plea is

offered;

(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 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 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 and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the single-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 6th day of February 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
Exhibit 34.1.3.1

 

[Letterhead of Grant Thornton]

 

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Board of Directors and Shareholders

Land America Tax and Flood Services, Inc.

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”), that Land America Tax and Flood Services, Inc. (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the residential and commercial mortgage backed securities for which the Company served as third-party property tax payment provider on the underlying collateral (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i)-(x) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii)-(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for theCompany’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities constituting the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was not designed to detect material noncompliance that may haveoccurred prior to the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company’s servicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that Land America Tax and Flood Services, Inc. complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

 

San Diego, CA

February 6, 2008
Randy HOLKESVIG, petitioner, v. NORTH DAKOTA.

No. 12-1413.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EX-33.5
Report on Assessment of Compliance

with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria


1. The undersigned authorized officer of LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services,
Inc. (the "Company") is responsible for assessing the Company's compliance with
the applicable servicing criteria as defined in 17 CFR Part 229 Section
1122(d)(4)(xi) and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the "Regulation AB Servicing Criteria") for
residential and commercial mortgage backed securities for which the Company
served as third-party property tax payment provider on the underlying collateral
(the "Platform"). Except as set forth in the preceding sentence, the servicing
criteria set forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d) are not applicable to the
activities the Company performed with respect to the Platform.

2. The Company used the criteria in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d) to assess
the compliance with the applicable Regulation AB Servicing Criteria.

3. Under one of the services offered by the Company, some customers may elect to
remit tax payments directly to tax agencies without having the Company remit
those property tax payments through our tax payment service. We refer to these
customers as "non-outsourced servicer customers." With respect to these
non-outsourced customers and the services the Company delivered pursuant to the
servicing criteria set forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d)(4)(xi), the
Company's assertion is strictly limited to its processing of tax payments
submitted through the Company's tax payment service.

4. With respect to servicing criteria set forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section
1122(d)(4)(xii), the Company's assertion is strictly limited to its processing
of property tax penalty payments. The Company has determined that its servicer
customers may also have access to systems that enable those servicers to process
penalties through obligor escrow accounts. Management's assessment of compliance
does not relate to the actual or potential activities of other parties with
access to obligor escrow accounts.

5. Based on such assessment, management believes that, as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2007, the Company has complied in all material respects with
the Regulation AB Servicing Criteria related to the servicing of the Platform
taken as a whole.

6. The registered public accounting firm of Grant Thornton, LLP, has issued an
attestation report on the Company's assessment of compliance with the Regulation
AB Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007.

Date: February 6, 2008

LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc.

By: /s/ Robert Ige
Name: Robert Ige
Its:  Executive Vice President
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12965]



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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[AAG/A Order No. 103-95]


Privacy Act of 1974; New System of Records; Extension of Comment 
Period

AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice of new system of records; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On April 21, 1995, the Department of Justice, Bureau of 
Prisons, published in the Federal Register a notice of a new system of 
records entitled ``Telephone Activity Record System (JUSTICE/BOP-
011).'' 60 FR 19958-59. The system notice provided for a comment period 
ending May 22, 1995. 60 FR 19958. In response to a request for an 
extension of the comment period, the Department of Justice is hereby 
extending the comment period for an additional 30 days, until June 26, 
1995.

DATES: The comment period is extended to June 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Patricia E. Neely, Staff 
Assistant, Systems Policy Staff, Justice Management Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530 (Room 850, WCTR Building).

    Dated: May 17, 1995.
Stephen R. Colgate,
Assistant Attorney General for Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-12965 Filed 5-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION IN LAFAYETTE

KEVIN OSBORN, )

)

Plaintiff )

)

v. ) CIVIL NO. 4:12-CV-67 RM

)

CINTEMP, INC., d/b/a CTI PERSONNEL )

)

Defendant )

OPINION and ORDER

On February 19, 2014, the court conducted a hearing on the defendant’s

summary judgment motion. The court opened the hearing by outlining its

tentative view that the motion should be denied and why. The parties’ oral

argument demonstrated that the court’s tentative view was based on a

misunderstanding about when Ms. McBride provided Mr. Osborn with the letter

explaining his asserted termination. The court reserved ruling to allow

consideration of the corrected understanding of the facts of record. 

The court still believes genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to

Ms. McBride’s apparent authority to terminate Mr. Osborn’s employment. Setting

aside the letter (since it wasn’t produced until a week later, it tells us nothing

about what Ms. McBride’s authority appeared to be on September 19), it remains

that CTI gave Ms. McBride the title of “staffing specialist.” A reasonable juror

could find it reasonable to think that “staffing” authority includes the authority

to hire, and (since CTI provided temporary employees to businesses like Subaru)

to fit its temps to the business’s needs. From that, a juror could find reasonable

case 4:12-cv-00067-RLM-APR document 23 filed 02/20/14 page 1 of 2
a belief that a “staffing specialist” could terminate the employment of a temp who

no longer fit the business’s needs.

Accordingly, the court DENIES the defendant’s motion for summary

judgment [Doc. No. 20].

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: February 20, 2014 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court

2

case 4:12-cv-00067-RLM-APR document 23 filed 02/20/14 page 2 of 2