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. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-48

)

DEYANTE STEPHENS )

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 April 17, 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 17th day of April, 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1841 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1841

 To suspend temporarily the duty on 1(3H)-Isobenzofuranone, 3,3-bis(2-
                    methyl-1-octyl-1H-indol-3-yl)-.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2005

  Mr. Forbes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on 1(3H)-Isobenzofuranone, 3,3-bis(2-
                    methyl-1-octyl-1H-indol-3-yl)-.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON 1(3H)-ISOBENZOFURANONE, 3,3-BIS(2-
              METHYL-1-OCTYL-1H-INDOL-3-YL)-.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.33.67       1(3H)-             Free         No Change        No Change        On or Before 12/  ''.
                         Isobenzofuranone,                                                  31/2008
                         3,3-bis(2-methyl-
                         1-octyl-1H-indol-
                         3-yl)- (CAS No.
                         50292-95-0)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3204.19.40)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
| FX Luxury, LLC (formerly known as FX Luxury Realty, LLC) | Delaware |   |   | 100% | *  |
|----------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------|--------|------|---------|
| FXL, Inc.                                                | Delaware |   |   | 100% |    |
| Circle Entertainment SV-I, LLC                           | Delaware |   |   | 100% |    |
| Circle Entertainment SV Orlando-I, LLC                   | Delaware |   |   | 100% |    |
| Circle Entertainment SV-Management, LLC                  | Nevada   |   |   | 100% |    |

| *  |   | Common membership interests |
|---------|--------|-----------------------------|
[No. 53803-9-I.

Division One.

January 31, 2005.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Alexis (Eggen) Campbell, *Respondent,*and James Robert Eggen, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Whatcom County, No. 97-3-00068-8, Michael F. Moynihan, J., entered January 14, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1911 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1911

            To reduce temporarily the duty on Clothianidin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2005

Mr. Etheridge introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To reduce temporarily the duty on Clothianidin.

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

SECTION 1. CLOTHIANIDIN.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.05.52       (E)-1-(2-Chloro-   5.4%         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         1,3-thiazol-5-                                                     31/2009
                         ylmethyl)-3-
                         methyl-2-
                         nitroguanidine
                         (Clothianidin)
                         (CAS No. 210880-
                         92-5) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         2934.10.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

(pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006 of Boeing Capital Corporation (the Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Walter E. Skowronski, President of the Company, certify, that:



| | (1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |                               
|---------------- |  | ------------------------------
|                 | 
|October 25, 2006 |  | /s/ WALTER E. SKOWRONSKI      
|                 |  | Walter E. Skowronski President
[No. 19935-1-II.

Division Two.

August 28, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Terry Leroy Scruggs, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 95-1-00204-5, James E.F.X. Warme, J., entered August 23, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Houghton, C.J., and Morgan, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

RICHARD JENDRZEJCZYK, )

 (Yen-Jay-Check) )

 Plaintiff, )

 )

vs. ) No. 2:15-cv-00300-RL-PRC

 )

PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA, LAPORTE )

COUNTY, INDIANA, WESTVILLE, INDIANA, )

and, Terri Wood, in her official and individual )

capacities, )

)

)

 Defendants. )

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE 

TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Comes now, Richard Jendrzejczyk, by Counsel Russell W. Brown, Jr. of King, Brown & 

Murdaugh, LLC and files this Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadline to File Plaintiff’s

Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and in support thereof states the 

following:

1. Defendants, LaPorte County and Westville, filed their Motion for Summary Judgment 

and Memorandum in Support thereof on January 8, 2018.

2. Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion to Extend the Deadline on February 5, 2018 

which this Court granted.

3. Plaintiff’s deadline was extended to and including March 7, 2018.

4. Plaintiff needs additional time to file his response to Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment.

5. Plaintiff requests that the deadline be extended to and including March 26, 2018.

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00300-RL-PRC document 70 filed 03/04/18 page 1 of 2
6. The Defendants, by Counsel Martin W. Kus does not object to the granting of this 

Motion. 

Wherefore, the Plaintiff, by Counsel, prays that this Court grant this Motion and extend 

the deadline to file Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment to and 

including March 26, 2018.

s/_Russell W. Brown, Jr.____ 

Russell W. Brown, Jr. #29628-64

9211 Broadway

Merrillville, IN 46410

(219) 769-6300

FAX: (219) 769-0633

rbrown@kbmtriallawyers.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 4, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing Unopposed 

Motion to Extend Deadline to File Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such 

filing to all counsel of record in this matter, all of whom are CM/ECF participants.

s/_Russell W. Brown, Jr.____ 

Russell W. Brown, Jr.

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00300-RL-PRC document 70 filed 03/04/18 page 2 of 2
#### TAYLOR, Respondent, v. LISMAN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

Action by Elizabeth R. Taylor against Anthony A. (Lisman.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order of the City Court of Mt. Vernon affirmed, with costs.

RICH, J.,

dissents, on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish by a fair preponderance of evidence that the defendant received an order to sell at 51%.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the  Annual  Report of  InfoSearch  Media,  Inc. a Delaware
corporation  (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31,
2005, as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  George Lichter,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  and
Frank Knuettel, II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify to the best
of their knowledge,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report 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 result of operations
            of the Company.

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



Date: March 23, 2006                                INFOSEARCH MEDIA, INC.

                                                    /s/ George Lichter
                                                    ------------------------
                                                    By: George Lichter
                                                    Its: Chief Executive Officer


Date: March 22, 2006                                INFOSEARCH MEDIA, INC.

                                                    /s/ Frank Knuettel, II
                                                    ------------------------
                                                    By: Frank Knuettel, II
                                                    Its: Chief Financial Officer
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C.
§1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Proxim Wireless Corporation
(the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
the undersigned Pankaj S. Manglik, Chief Executive Officer, and Brian J. Sereda,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of the Company certifies, to the best
knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)           The
Report 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.
 
 
 
 /s/ Pankaj S. Manglik
                
                /s/ Brian J. SeredaPankaj
      S. Manglik
                
                Brian
      J. SeredaChief
      Executive Officer
                
                Chief
      Financial Officer and TreasurerDate:  May
      15, 2008
                
                Date:  May
      15, 2008
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-2843

LT Case No. 2020-DP-000032

_____________________________

J.W., Mother of K.W., a Child,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILIES, 

Appellee.

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County. 

Edward L. Scott, Judge. 

Keith Peterson, of Law Offices of Peterson, P.A., Mulberry, 

for Appellant. 

Rachel Batten, of Children’s Legal Services, Department of 

Children and Families, Brooksville, for Appellee. 

Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and 

Amanda Victoria Glass, Senior Attorney, of Guardian ad Litem 

Office, Tallahassee, and Jamie Billotte Moses, Co-Counsel for 

Guardian ad Litem Program, of Holland & Knight, LLP, Orlando, 

for Guardian ad Litem o/b/o K.W. 

February 1, 2024 
2

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, SOUD, and PRATT, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
[No. 21056-8-II.

Division Two.

October 17, 1997.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Ole Christensen, *Appellant,*and Mary Ann Christensen, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 94-3-00944-1, Robert L. Harris, J., entered July 26,1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, C.J., concurred in by Bridgewater and Hunt, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

DENNIS COREY BURGHER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No. 1:14-CV-00266

)

JOHN DOE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION and ORDER

Before the Court is a motion by pro se Plaintiff Dennis Burgher (Docket # 3), who is

currently incarcerated, asking that the Court recruit counsel for him in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action alleging various civil rights violations by Defendants during his incarceration in the Grant

County Jail in 2012. “When a pro se litigant submits a request for court-appointed counsel, the

district court must first consider whether the indigent plaintiff has made reasonable attempts to

secure counsel on his own, or conversely, if he has been precluded from doing so.” Romanelli v.

Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir.

2010)). 

Although Burgher says that he has “made repeated efforts to obtain a lawyer,” he does

not provide any specifics about these attempts that would allow the Court to assess the

reasonableness of his efforts. See Jackson v. Cnty. of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1073 (7th Cir.

1992) (“If . . . the indigent has made no reasonable attempts to secure counsel (unless

circumstances prevented him from doing so), the court should deny any § 1915(d) motions

outright.”); see also Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 700 (7th Cir. 2008); Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d

649, 656 (7th Cir. 2004).
Furthermore, Burgher’s request for counsel is premature. The complaint has not yet been

screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and Defendants have not appeared and filed an

answer. Thus, “the case [is] still in its infancy, thereby making it impossible at th[is] juncture to

make any accurate determination regarding [Burgher’s] abilities or the outcome of the lawsuit.”1

Romanelli, 615 F.3d at 852; see also Mungiovi v. Chicago Housing Auth., No. 94 C 6663, 1994

WL 735413, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 19, 1994) (“The court’s general practice is to consider

appointment of counsel if and when it appears that the action has sufficient merit to require

complex discovery or an evidentiary hearing.”). 

Therefore, Burgher’s request that the Court recruit counsel for him (Docket # 3) is

DENIED without prejudice. 

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 16th day of December 2014.

s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

1 Of course, Burgher’s statement that he has made “repeated efforts to obtain a lawyer but . . . no one is

willing to take on this case without payment” (Mot. for Appointment of Counsel ¶ 4) is an indication that his case

may have little merit and that appointing counsel will not make a difference in the case’s ultimate outcome. See

Cnty. of McLean, 953 F.2d at 1073 (considering plaintiff’s unsuccessful attempts to retain counsel when denying his

motion to appoint counsel).
Exhibit 32 (a)



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Form 10-QSB of United Financial Banking Companies, Inc. for the six months ended June 30, 2005, I, Harold C. Rauner, President and Chief Executive Officer of United Financial Banking Companies,
Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



| | (1) | such Form 10-QSB, 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 such Form 10-QSB, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of United Financial Banking Companies,
Inc.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/S/ HAROLD C. RAUNER                 
|Harold C. Rauner                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy Grant, Also Known as Timothy Grand, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Coffinas, J.), rendered June 16,1983, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues that could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.