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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

MICHAEL MILES, Individually,

Plaintiff,

v.

Shaffner & Shaffner Enterprises Inc., an 

Indiana Corporation,

Defendant.

______________________________________

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:14-cv-1752

Judge Rudy Lozano 

Magistrate Judge Christopher A 

Nuechterlein

AGREED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT UNDER SEAL

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Michael Miles, through counsel, and hereby moves this 

Honorable Court for an Order granting leave file a Confidential Settlement Agreement under 

seal:

1. The parties having entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release 

dated April 2, 2015.

2. The terms of the parties Settlement Agreement and Release called for a 

confidentiality provision. Furthermore, adherence to this confidentiality provision 

was deemed a material part of the Agreement.

3. In the aforementioned agreement, the settlement calls for the Court to retain 

jurisdiction over this matter to enforce the terms in the Settlement Agreement.

4. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requests leave of this Court to file the Confidential

Settlement Agreement and supporting exhibits under seal.

5. A proposed Order is attached hereto.

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01752-RL-CAN document 22 filed 04/17/15 page 1 of 2
Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Owen B. Dunn Jr., Esq.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esquire

Ohio Bar No. 0074743

LAW OFFICE OF OWEN B. DUNN, JR.

4334 W. Central Ave., Suite 222

Toledo, OH 43615

(419) 241-9661

(419) 241-9737 – Fax

dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was on this 16th day of April, 2015 served 

electronically to:

Counsel for Defendant

Randall L. Morgan

Stephen R. Snyder

SNYDER MORGAN LLP

200 West Main Street 

Syracuse, Indiana 46567 

srs@snydermorgan.com

rlm@snydermorgan.com

and

James J. O’Connor, Jr. 

BARRETT & MCNAGNY LLP

215 East Berry Street

P.O. Box 2263

Fort Wayne, IN 46802 

jjo@barrettlaw.com

By: /s/ Owen B. Dunn, Jr. _

Owen B. Dunn, Jr.

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01752-RL-CAN document 22 filed 04/17/15 page 2 of 2
EX-33.11
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
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1798 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1798

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 
the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf in the 
            Mid-Atlantic and North Atlantic planning areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2005

 Mr. Pallone introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 
the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf in the 
            Mid-Atlantic and North Atlantic planning areas.

    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 ``Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti-
Drilling Act'' or the ``COAST Anti-Drilling Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE 
              OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.

    Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(p) Prohibition of Oil and Gas Leasing in Certain Areas of the 
Outer Continental Shelf.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
section or any other law, the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue 
a lease for the exploration, development, or production of oil, natural 
gas, or any other mineral in--
            ``(1) the Mid-Atlantic planning area; or
            ``(2) the North Atlantic planning area.''.
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 7011

ASKARI DANSO MS LUMUMBA , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CHADWICK DOTSON; JOSEPH W. WALTERS; DAVID ANDERSON; BARRY KANODE; D. HAYNES; J. SPANGLER; STURDIVANT; JOHN DOE, K

- 9 Officer River North , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. ( 7:22

- cv - 00396

- MFU

- JCH )

Submitted : May 30 , 2024 Decided: June 3, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Askari Danso MS Lumumba , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7011 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Askari Danso MS Lumumba appeals the district court’s order dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 c ivil action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
Lumumba v. Dotson , No. 7:22

- cv - 00396

- MFU

- JCH (W.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2023).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-7011 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-CR-9

)

ALFRED ALCARAZ )

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 19, 2014, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America. The Defendant waived in open Court prosecution by

indictment and consented that the proceedings may be by information rather than by indictment.

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’s waiver of indictment is knowing and voluntary;
(3) 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;

(4) 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;

(5) 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;

(6) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(7) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

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

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept both the defendant’s waiver of indictment and plea

of guilty and that the Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the Information 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 19th day of February, 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

2
Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,394
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  109,058
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,542
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               119,053
<PP&E>                                         150,281
<DEPRECIATION>                                  96,873
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 335,095
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           85,138
<BONDS>                                          5,820
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           282
<OTHER-SE>                                     227,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   335,095
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               105,128
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   95,913
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 588
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (121)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        47
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (168)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        55
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Michael BOETTLIN, Jr., petitioner, v. Jon D. FISHER, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Smithfield, et al.

No. 13-6715.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

AMBER DIAZ, formerly known as )

Amber Yohman, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-199

)

EDWARD NEWCOMER, GAMESA )

TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, INC., and )

ENTERPRISE FM TRUST, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

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

on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 2.) The Court, having

reviewed the original Notice of Removal, noted several inadequacies and ordered Defendants to

file an Amended Notice of Removal (Docket # 6), which they subsequently did (Docket # 9). 

The Amended Notice of Removal alleges that, “[a]ccording [to] the plaintiff’s Complaint, and

upon information and belief based on the plaintiff’s medical records in relation to the plaintiff’s

alleged injuries experienced from the subject incident giving rise to her Complaint, the defendant

is of the belief that the plaintiff is a citizen of Indiana.” (Am. Notice of Removal ¶ 7.) 

Defendants’ Amended Notice of Removal, however, is still insufficient because it is

well-settled that “[a]llegations of federal subject matter jurisdiction may not be made on the

basis of information and belief, only personal knowledge.” Yount v. Shashek, No. Civ. 06-753-

GPM, 2006 WL 4017975, at *10 n.1 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2006) (citing Am.’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best

Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992)); Ferolie Corp. v. Advantage Sales &

1

case 1:13-cv-00199-JD-RBC document 10 filed 07/02/13 page 1 of 2
Mktg., LLC, No. 04 C 5425, 2004 WL 2433114, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2004); Hayes v. Bass

Pro Outdoor World, LLC, No. 02 C 9106, 2003 WL 187411, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2003);

Multi-M Int’l, Inc. v. Paige Med. Supply Co., 142 F.R.D. 150, 152 (N.D. Ill. 1992). 

Consequently, Defendants must further amend their Notice of Removal to allege Plaintiff Amber

Diaz’s citizenship on personal knowledge rather than on information and belief. 

Accordingly, Defendants are ORDERED to supplement the record by filing a Second

Amended Notice of Removal on or before July 16, 2013, properly alleging on personal

knowledge the citizenship of Plaintiff Amber Diaz.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 2nd day of July, 2013.

/S/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

2

case 1:13-cv-00199-JD-RBC document 10 filed 07/02/13 page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 12




Boeing Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries
Computation of Ratio of Income to Fixed Charges


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                    Nine months ended
                                                                                      September 30,
(Dollars in millions)                                                             2001              2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income:
<S>                                                                        <C>               <C>
    Income before provision for income taxes                               $        167.5    $        103.5
    Fixed charges                                                                   234.7             168.0
                                                                           ------------------------------------
    Income before provision for income taxes and fixed charges             $        402.2    $        271.5
                                                                           ====================================

Fixed charges:
    Interest expense                                                       $        232.1    $        165.4
    Preferred stock dividends                                                         2.6               2.6
                                                                           ------------------------------------
                                                                           $        234.7    $        168.0
                                                                           ====================================

Ratio of income before provision for income taxes and fixed
    charges to fixed charges                                                       1.71              1.62
                                                                           ====================================
</TABLE>
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMY HOLZMAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

INVENSENSE INC, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-01038 WHA

SUA SPONTE JUDICIAL

REFERRAL FOR PURPOSE

OF DETERMINING

RELATIONSHIP OF CASES

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(c), the Court sua sponte refers this case to Judge

James Donato to determine whether it is related to Nuzzo v. InvenSense, Inc., et al., No. 3:17-

cv-00859-JD. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

JEROME WILLIAMS, 

 Plaintiff, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

vs. CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-428 WL 

RON NEAL and HOWARD MORTON, 

 Defendants. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 Jerome Williams, a pro se prisoner, filed a motion (ECF 38) objecting to this court’s order 

(ECF 36) dividing his unrelated claims into three separate lawsuits. To the extent he is arguing the 

court lacks the authority divide his claims, that is incorrect. The Seventh Circuit has clearly stated 

that when faced with a pro se prisoner’s complaint containing unrelated claims, “[a] district judge 

[can] solve the problem by severance (creating multiple suits that can be separately screened) . . 

..” Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2012). To the extent he 

is arguing the court should have allowed him to decide how to divide his claims, the court tried 

four times (ECF 6, 9, 15, and 27) to get him to file a complaint containing related claims. To the 

extent he is arguing his claims should not have been divided because they are related, he has 

provided no explanation for how they are related beyond asking the court to reconsider his prior 

submissions. However, “[r]econsideration is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously 

rejected arguments . . ..” Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 

1270 (7th Cir.1996). Therefore, Mr. Williams has provided no basis for reconsidering the order 

separating his claims. 
2 

 When the unrelated claims were divided into separate cases, what remained in this one was 

Mr. Williams allegations that Superintendent Ron Neal and Executive Assistant Howard Morton 

retaliated against him by denying the restoration of good time credits because he filed a lawsuit. 

In a prior order (ECF 37) the court screened these claims and explained why the facts alleged did 

not state a claim. Pursuant to Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013), Mr. Williams 

was granted leave to file an amended complaint. In response, he filed (ECF 39) an exact copy of 

his prior complaint (ECF 35) with a new signature date. Since the complaint has not changed, 

neither has the analysis of it. Therefore, for the reasons previously explained (ECF 37), the claims 

remaining in this case against Ron Neal and Howard Morton do not state a claim and this case will 

be dismissed. 

 For these reasons, the motion to reconsider (ECF 38) is DENIED and this case is 

DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim against the only remaining 

defendants Ron Neal and Howard Morton. 

SO ORDERED. 

ENTERED: April 17, 2017 

 s/William C. Lee 

William C. Lee, Judge 

United States District Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          11,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  295,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (52,100)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,606,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,664,000
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     50,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     192,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,606,400
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,700
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>