alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

NYKAZA GEE, )

 )

 Plaintiff, )

v. ) Case No. 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-CAN

)

ERIC PARRISH and BRADY )

JANOVITZ, )

)

 Defendants. )

INITIAL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME PURSUANT TO N.D. IND. L. R. 6-1

Defendants, Erick Parrish and Brady Janovitz (“Defendants”), by counsel, respectfully 

submit their Initial Motion for Extension of Time Pursuant to N.D. Ind. L.R. 6-1 (“motion”) to 

respond to Plaintiff’s complaint. In support thereof, Defendants state the following:

1. Nykaza Gee (“Plaintiff”) filed a Prisoner Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on 

March 15, 2016.

2. Service of Summons on Defendants was effectuated on May 16, 2016, making 

Defendants’ Answer due on June 6, 2016, which has yet to pass.

3. Defendants require additional time to review and investigate the allegations in the 

complaint and prepare their responsive pleading.

4. This extension does not interfere with any case management plan, scheduled hearings, or 

other case deadlines.

5. Plaintiff is a pro se and he is currently incarcerated, making conferring with him 

regarding this motion impracticable.

6. Pursuant to N.D. Ind. L.R. 6-1, Defendants request a twenty-eight (28) day extension of 

time, specifically to July 5, 2016, to file an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 19 filed 06/03/16 page 1 of 3
2

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their extension of time 

to and including July 5, 2016, to file an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint in the above-captioned 

matter.

Date: June 3, 2016 By: s/ Philip A. Gordon

Philip A. Gordon

Deputy Attorney General

Attorney No. 31321-49

Office of the Indiana Attorney General

Indiana Government Center South, 5th Floor

302 W. Washington St.

Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770

Telephone: (317) 232-7144

Fax: (317) 232-6217

E-mail: Philip.Gordon@atg.in.gov

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 19 filed 06/03/16 page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 3, 2016, the foregoing Initial Motion for Extension of Time 

Pursuant to N.D. Ind. L.R. 6-1 was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the 

CM/ECF system. 

I also certify that a copy was mailed, by first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid and 

properly addressed to the following non-CM/ECF participant:

Nykaza Gee

DOC # 127839

Indiana State Prison

One Park Row

Michigan City, IN 46360

s/ Philip A. Gordon 

Philip A. Gordon

Deputy Attorney General

OFFICE OF INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL

Indiana Government Center South, 5th Floor

302 W. Washington Street

Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770

Telephone: (317) 232-6217

Fax: (317) 232-7979

Email: Philip.Gordon@atg.in.gov

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 19 filed 06/03/16 page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                          24,393
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  140,997
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,963
<INVENTORY>                                     83,457
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               251,696
<PP&E>                                         247,702
<DEPRECIATION>                                 155,047
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 356,527
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          391,197
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        582
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (264,347)<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   356,527
<SALES>                                        545,837
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               545,837
<CGS>                                          624,622
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  624,622
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               102,852
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,123
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (192,175)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       453
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (192,628)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (192,628)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Other SE includes Additional Paid in Capital of $335,017 and Accumulated
Deficit of $599,364
<F2>Earnings per share is not applicable
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Gerald Hayes v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-09-00437-CR

Trial court case number: 1198372

Trial court: 351st District Court of Harris County

On July 26, 2012, we abated the above-referenced appeal for the appointment of counsel 

to represent appellant. A supplemental clerk’s record has been filed, reflecting that Franklin 

Bynum has been appointed. Accordingly, the appeal is reinstated. 

The record is complete. Appellant’s appointed counsel must file a brief no later than 30 

days from the date of this order.

Because appellant is represented by counsel on appeal, we strike appellant’s pro se brief 

and all currently pending pro se motions. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid 

representation. Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Marshall v. 

State, 210 S.W.3d 618, 620 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (stating that points raised in appellant’s 

pro se brief would not be considered because appellant had no right to hybrid representation); 

Thomas v. State, 312 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. ref’d). 

Appellant’s appointed counsel may re-file any motions he deems appropriate.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Radack

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 2, 2012
[No. 21336-2-II.

Division Two.

October 3, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Emanuel Velasco Garcia, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grays Harbor County, No. 96-1-00288-0, F. Mark McCauley, J., entered November 1, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, C.J., concurred in by Bridgewater and Hunt, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

CRAIG C. LADYMAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:14CV2038-PPS

)

NICHOLAS MEADE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Craig C. Ladyman has brought this civil rights action asserting

claims arising out of his arrest and prosecution after a traffic stop by Indiana State

Troopers. Recently Ladyman has filed a motion that can be quickly addressed. 

Ladyman’s “Motion for Enlargement of Time and Set Aside Judgment” [DE 68] is a

compound motion trying to do two things at once. This alone might be a basis for

striking the motion as procedurally flawed, as the court’s local rules require separate

motions to be filed separately. See N.D. Ind. Local Rule 7-1(a). Ladyman is advised to

avoid such compound requests for two unrelated types of relief in a single filing. 

In this instance I will address both motions rather than require refiling. The first

request is for an additional 14 days to respond to a motion to reconsider filed by

defendants Bohner, Meade and Smith. Because the motion for additional time is itself

untimely, and because Magistrate Judge Gotsch ruled on the motion more than three

weeks ago, I will deny the motion for additional time.
The second aspect of Ladyman’s motion seeks to set aside Judge Moody’s

dismissal of Ladyman’s claims against State Trooper Smith. Judge Moody dismissed

the original claims against Smith on September 29, 2016 [DE 20] and the claims against

Smith in the amended complaint on April 28, 2017 [DE 36], both times on the basis that

the finality of Ladyman’s state convictions had preclusive effect and barred the §1983

claims against the Troopers. In his new motion, Ladyman supports setting aside that

judgment based on a single paragraph in which is alleges that Smith “fraudulently

signed the Information Charging Document filed on the [state] court September 17,

2013" and “made false affidavits” in support of the charges. [DE 68 at 2.] 

There’s nothing new about this allegation that would support a fresh analysis

under Federal Rule 60(b). In both the original and amended complaints, the pleading of

Ladyman’s claim against State Trooper Smith was predicated on the allegation that

Smith “signed and affirmed a false affidavit” in support of the state charges. [DE 1 at

¶¶13 & 14; DE 25 at ¶7.] Rule 60(b)(3) authorizes relief from a judgment based on fraud

by an opposing party, meaning fraud in the context of this legal proceeding that

prevented Ladyman from fully and fairly presenting a meritorious claim here. Philos

Technologies, Inc. v. Philos & D, Inc., 802 F.3d 905, 917 (7th Cir. 2015). Ladyman does not

present a ground for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) merely by repeating the

allegation of fraud by Smith that he made in support of his original claim that has been

dismissed. The motion to set aside judgment will be denied.

ACCORDINGLY:

2
Plaintiff Craig C. Ladyman’s “Motion for Enlargement of Time and Set Aside

Judgment” [DE 68] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: December 14, 2017.

 /s/ Philip P. Simon 

United States District Court Judge

3
Exhibit 3.3

ROSS MILLER                                                      Document Number
Secretary of State                                                20120445138-40
206 North Carson Street, Suite 1                            Filing Date and Time
Carson City, Nevada 89701-4299                               06/26/2012 10:09 AM
(775) 684-5708                                                     Entity Number
Website: www.nvsos.gov                                             E0441672005-1

                                                         Filed in the office of

                                                             /s/ Ross Miller
                                                             ROSS MILLER
                                                             Secretary of State
                                                             State of Nevada

                                              ABOVE SPACE IS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Certificate of Amendment
(PURSUANT TO NRS 78.385 AND 78.390)

              Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation
                         For Nevada Profit Corporations
          (Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 - After Issuance of Stock)

1. Name of Corporation:

Castmor Resources, Ltd.

2. The articles have been amended as follows (provide article numbers, if
available):

The name of the Corporation has been changed from Castmor Resources, Ltd. to Red
Giant Entertainment, Inc.


3. The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation
entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the voting power, or such
greater proportion of the voting power as may be required in the case of a vote
by classes or series, or as may be required by the provisions of the articles of
incorporation have voted in favor of the amendment is: 51,860,000

4. Effective date of filing (optional): Date: June 26, 2012      Time: 9:00 a.m.
                  (must be no later than 90 days after the certificate is filed)


5. Signature (Required)


/s/ Benny Powell
------------------------------
Officer of Officer

* If any proposed amendment would alter or change any preferences or any
relative or other right given to any class or series of outstanding shares, then
the amendment must be approved by the vote. In addition to the affirmative vote
otherwise required of the holders of shares representing a majority of the
voting power of each class or series affected by the amendment regardless of
limitations or restrictions on the voting power thereof.

IMPORTANT: Failure to include any of the above information and submit the proper
fees may cause this filing to be rejected.

This form must be accompanied by appropriate fees.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1501 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1501

 To amend the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances 
Import and Export Act with respect to penalties for powder cocaine and 
                        crack cocaine offenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2005

Mr. Bartlett of Maryland (for himself, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. 
Owens, and Mr. Ryun of Kansas) introduced the following bill; which was 
  referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the 
   Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances 
Import and Export Act with respect to penalties for powder cocaine and 
                        crack cocaine offenses.

    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 ``Powder-Crack Cocaine Penalty 
Equalization Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. TRAFFICKING.

    (a) 50-Gram Penalty.--Section 401(b)(1)(A) of the Controlled 
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``5 kilograms'' and 
        inserting ``50 grams''; and
            (2) by striking clause (iii).
    (b) 5-Gram Penalty.--Section 401(b)(1)(B) of the Controlled 
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``500 grams'' and inserting 
        ``5 grams''; and
            (2) by striking clause (iii).

SEC. 3. POSSESSION.

    Section 404(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 844(a)) 
is amended by striking ``cocaine base'' and inserting ``any controlled 
substance described in section 401(b)(1)(A)(ii)''.

SEC. 4. IMPORT AND EXPORT.

    (a) 50-Gram Penalty.--Section 1010(b)(1) of the Controlled 
Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``5 kilograms'' and 
        inserting ``50 grams''; and
            (2) by striking subparagraph (C).
    (b) 5-Gram Penalty.--Section 1010(b)(2) of the Controlled 
Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``500 grams'' and 
        inserting ``5 grams''; and
            (2) by striking subparagraph (C).
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1683 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1683

 To amend title 37, United States Code, to require a minimum basic pay 
level of $2,000 per month for members of the Armed Forces serving in a 
                              combat zone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2005

 Mr. Clay (for himself, Ms. McKinney, and Mr. Butterfield) introduced 
   the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 37, United States Code, to require a minimum basic pay 
level of $2,000 per month for members of the Armed Forces serving in a 
                              combat zone.

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

SECTION 1. MINIMUM BASIC PAY FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES SERVING IN 
              COMBAT ZONES.

    (a) Minimum Basic Pay Level Established.--Section 203 of title 37, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(f) Notwithstanding the rates of basic pay otherwise in effect at 
any time, in the case of a member who serves on active duty for 10 or 
more days during any month in an area for which special pay is 
available under section 310 of this title, the rate of basic pay for 
the member for that month shall not be less than $2,000.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (f) of section 203 of title 37, 
United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply to months 
beginning after September 30, 2005.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted  Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Danvers Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") for the Year Ended
December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I hereby certify, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



This
statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not
intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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

Dated:
March 16, 2010

/s/ JAMES J. MCCARTHY James J. McCarthy Executive Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer


---



QuickLinks
#### DEAN, Appellant, v. ALLEN, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Fourth Department.

February 3, 1899.)

Action by William G. Dean against Charles P. Allen, impleaded, etc.

PER CURIAM.

The words “final judgment” are 'stricken from the decision, the order, and the judgment, and the judgment is sustained as an interlocutory judgment; and. the plaintiff has leave to amend his complaint within 20 days by striking therefrom the name of Charles W. Wagstaff, on payment of the costs of the demurrer, with leave to the defendant to answer within 20 days from the service of the amended complaint, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 WRITTEN STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (i)
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
 Dated: May 11, 2006
    
    /S/ Steven F. Udvar-HazySTEVEN F. UDVAR-HAZYDated: May 11, 2006
    
    /S/ Alan H. LundALAN H. LUND
 - 31 -
# L_2008242EN.01000901.xml

| 10.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 242/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 242/9

---

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2008 — Amending Budget No 1

(2008/701/EC)

Establishment plan

| Category and grade | Posts |
| --- | --- |
| 2008 | Amending budget | 2008 |
| Authorised under the Community budget | Amendments to the authorised establishment plan | Amended establishment plan |
| Permanent | Temporary | Permanent | Temporary | Permanent | Temporary |
| AD 16 | — | 1 | — | — | — | 1 |
| AD 15 | — | 3 | — | — | — | 3 |
| AD 14 | — | 4 | — | — | — | 4 |
| AD 13 | — | 5 | — | — | — | 5 |
| AD 12 | — | 34 | — | — | — | 34 |
| AD 11 | — | 33 | — | — | — | 33 |
| AD 10 | — | 33 | — | — | — | 33 |
| AD 9 | — | 20 | — | 2 | — | 22 |
| AD 8 | — | 41 | — | 1 | — | 42 |
| AD 7 | — | 43 | — | — | — | 43 |
| AD 6 | — | 22 | — | 1 | — | 23 |
| AD 5 | — | 9 | — | — | — | 9 |
| Total grade AD | — | 248 | — | 4 | — | 252 |
| AST 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| AST 10 | — | 6 | — | — | — | 6 |
| AST 9 | — | 2 | — | — | — | 2 |
| AST 8 | — | 11 | — | — | — | 11 |
| AST 7 | — | 14 | — | — | — | 14 |
| AST 6 | — | 33 | — | — | — | 33 |
| AST 5 | — | 34 | — | — | — | 34 |
| AST 4 | — | 56 | — | — | — | 56 |
| AST 3 | — | 26 | — | — | — | 26 |
| AST 2 | — | 19 | — | 2 | — | 21 |
| AST 1 | — | 26 | — | — | — | 26 |
| Total grade AST | — | 227 | — | 2 | — | 229 |
| Grand total | — | 475 | — | — | — | 481 |
| Total staff | 475 | 6 | 481 |

Category and grade

Posts

2008

Amending budget

2008

Authorised under the Community budget

Amendments to the authorised establishment plan

Amended establishment plan

Permanent

Temporary

Permanent

Temporary

Permanent

Temporary

AD 16

—

1

—

—

—

1

AD 15

—

3

—

—

—

3

AD 14

—

4

—

—

—

4

AD 13

—

5

—

—

—

5

AD 12

—

34

—

—

—

34

AD 11

—

33

—

—

—

33

AD 10

—

33

—

—

—

33

AD 9

—

20

—

2

—

22

AD 8

—

41

—

1

—

42

AD 7

—

43

—

—

—

43

AD 6

—

22

—

1

—

23

AD 5

—

9

—

—

—

9

Total grade AD

—

248

—

4

—

252

AST 11

—

—

—

—

—

—

AST 10

—

6

—

—

—

6

AST 9

—

2

—

—

—

2

AST 8

—

11

—

—

—

11

AST 7

—

14

—

—

—

14

AST 6

—

33

—

—

—

33

AST 5

—

34

—

—

—

34

AST 4

—

56

—

—

—

56

AST 3

—

26

—

—

—

26

AST 2

—

19

—

2

—

21

AST 1

—

26

—

—

—

26

Total grade AST

—

227

—

2

—

229

Grand total

Grand total

—

—

475

475

—

—

—

—

—

—

481

481

Total staff

Total staff

475

475

6

6

481

481

---
#### SAYER, Respondent, v. SCOTT, Appellant.

(Supreme Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 31, 1899.)

Action by Robert A. Sayer against Lewis B. Scott.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.