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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:16-CR-46-PPS-PRC

 )

JOHNNY CLAY AMOS, )

Defendant. ) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UPON PLEA OF GUILTY BY DEFENDANT JOHNNY CLAY AMOS

TO: THE HONORABLE PHILIP P. SIMON,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant Johnny Clay Amos’ request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came for hearing before Magistrate Judge Paul R.

Cherry, on October 20, 2016, with the consent of Defendant Johnny Clay Amos, counsel for Defendant

Johnny Clay Amos, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant Johnny Clay Amos’ 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 Defendant Johnny Clay Amos under

oath on the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney

and of counsel for Defendant Johnny Clay Amos,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant Johnny Clay Amos understands the nature of the charge against him to which

the plea is offered;

(2) that Defendant Johnny Clay Amos 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 Defendant Johnny Clay Amos understands what the maximum possible sentence is,

including the effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant Johnny Clay Amos 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 Defendant Johnny Clay Amos has been knowingly and voluntarily

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

(5) that Defendant Johnny Clay Amos is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant Johnny Clay Amos 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 Defendant Johnny Clay Amos’ plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Johnny Clay Amos’ plea of guilty to the offense charged

in Count 1 of the Indictment and that Defendant Johnny Clay Amos be adjudged guilty of the offense

charged in Count 1 of the Indictment and have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been

ordered. Should this Report and Recommendation be accepted and Johnny Clay Amos be adjudged

guilty, a sentencing date before Judge Philip P. Simon will be set by separate order. Objections to the

Findings and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

So ORDERED this 20th day of October, 2016.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
#### FINGERHUT v. GOLKINS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

April 9, 1912.)

■Money Lent (§ 7*)—Loan—Evidence—Sufficiency.

In an action for money loaned, evidence *held*insufficient to show that the money was loaned to the defendant, and not paid to him upon- debts due him from the plaintiff and her husband.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Money Lent, Cent. Dig. §§ 11-13; Dec. Dig. § 7.*]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.

Action by Clara Fingerhut against Sam Golkins. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued March term, 1912, before GUY, LEHMAN, and BI-JUR, JJ.

Jacob J. Schwebel, for appellant.

Louis Halle, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*Rep’r Indexes

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sues for $200, money loaned. The defense is that plaintiff’s husband owed defendant $125 for smokers’ materials sold from time to time; that defendant threatened to sue, whereupon plaintiff induced defendant to give her $75, and $1.50 interest, with which to redeem one of her diamond ear-rings, in order that she might repledge them for a greater sum, which she forthwith did, obtaining $275, $200 of which she gave to defendant in payment of Lis claim.

While the testimony of the parties is contradictory, it is apparent from the record that the judgment in favor of the plaintiff is manifestly against the evidence. The learned trial judge said, in substance, that he considered the story of the defendant exceedingly improbable, in that, although he was unwilling to extend further -credit to the plaintiff, after having furnished her goods to the amount of $150, he was, nevertheless, willing to hand her $75 in cash for the purpose of redeeming one of her ear-rings from pawn, in order to pledge both of them to raise a sum sufficient to repay this sum of $75, plus the $150 which he had already advanced. There is, how-ever, nothing at all improbable in the transaction. Refusal to extend further credit to the plaintiff may have been due entirely to lack of faith in her business ability to meet any greater debt. Trusting her for $75 for a specific purpose (of ultimate benefit to himself also) implied merely faith in her integrity—which was not at all inconsistent with distrust of her business ability to the extent indicated. On the other hand, the theory of plaintiff that, in her circumstances, she was willing, without any particular object in view, to loan $200 to one who, she pretends, was practically a stranger to her so far as any business relation went, is almost incredible.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Wilbert Wright, Appellant, v Eugene S. LeFevre, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Levine, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Crangle, J.), entered July 6, 1984 in Clinton County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner is currently serving a term of 25 years to life imprisonment, having been sentenced as a persistent felony offender upon his conviction of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree. This conviction was subsequently affirmed *(People v Wright,*43 AD2d 666, *affd*35 NY2d 944). In a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, petitioner alleged that the trial court did not have jurisdiction of his case because, in his opinion, the term of the Trial Judge in New York County (Davidson, J.), had expired prior to petitioner’s trial and his sentencing on April 26, 1972. Special Term dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued. We affirm.

As noted by Special Term, habeas corpus relief is inappropriate here since petitioner’s contention that the trial court lacked jurisdiction could have been reviewed directly during the appeals of his conviction or pursuant to a CPL article 440 proceeding in the court of conviction (CPL 440.10 [1] [a]; *see also, People ex rel. Thomas v LeFevre,*102 AD2d 925; *People ex rel. Davis v Coombe,*97 AD2d 667). There is no evidence in the record presented here to indicate that petitioner’s constitutional rights have been violated so as to mandate a departure from traditional orderly procedure *(see, People ex rel. Davis v Coombe, supra,*p 668).

Further, we take judicial notice of the fact that Justice Davidson’s term did not expire on December 31, 1969, as petitioner contends, but was instead scheduled to end on December 31, 1970. However, in the general election held November 3, 1970, Justice Davidson was reelected to another 14-year term (1971-1972 NY Legis Manual, at 1413). Accordingly, petitioner’s contention that Justice Davidson improperly presided at his trial is meritless.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
[No. 38341-8-I.

Division One.

August 25, 1997.]

#### Larry G. Backlund, et al., *Appellants,*v. The University of Washington, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 92-2-28088-4, William L. Downing, J., entered February 23, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Becker, J., concurred in by Coleman and Webster, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28569-28570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13342]



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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting; cancellation.

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

SUMMARY: On May 12, 1995, at 60 FR 25688, the Forest Service published 
notice of a National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council 
[[Page 28570]] meeting scheduled to be held in Carlisle, Illinois, June 
8-10, 1995. That meeting has been cancelled. Notices of future meetings 
of the Advisory Council will be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Suzanne M. del Villar, Cooperative Forestry Staff, Forest Service 
telephone: (970) 928-9264.

    Dated: May 25, 1995.
William L. McCleese,
Acting Deputy Chief, NFF.
[FR Doc. 95-13342 Filed 5-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00334-SLC document 138-21 filed 10/26/17 page 1 of 2
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00334-SLC document 138-21 filed 10/26/17 page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1641 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1641

To make the internal control requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 
                            2002 voluntary.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 2005

  Mr. Flake introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To make the internal control requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 
                            2002 voluntary.

    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 ``Competitiveness Enhancement and 
Opportunity Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT OF INTERNAL CONTROLS VOLUNTARY.

    Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7262) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by striking ``requiring each annual report'' 
                and inserting ``permitting each annual report''; and
                    (B) by striking ``which shall--'' and inserting 
                ``which, if containing such internal control report, 
                shall--''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by striking ``shall attest'' and inserting 
                ``may attest''; and
                    (B) by striking ``attestation made'' and inserting 
                ``attestation if made''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

v. ) No. 2:15 CR 96

)

RICHARD BALDERAS. )

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY AND

 ADJUDICATION

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge (DE # 23), to which the defendant has waived objection, and subject to this

court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(3), the

Magistrate Judge’s findings are now ADOPTED, defendant’s plea of guilty to the

offense charged in Count 1 of the Indictment is now hereby ACCEPTED, and defendant

is adjudged guilty of that offense. A sentencing date will be set under separate order.

SO ORDERED.

Date: June 6, 2016

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
#### MORGAN et al., Respondents, v. GRIDLEY et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 3, 1899.)

Action by Morgan & Wright against Francis W. Gridley and others.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
**CL** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 1 - 0 5 89 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. MIKEL S. LETHERMAN ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including March 31 , 202 3 , within which to prepare, serve, and file the State’s response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court February 27 2023

02/27/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0589
Quinton WASHINGTON, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 13-7040.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

3501 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22226-3500 Office of Minority and Women Inclusion

November 17, 2017 

To: Presidents/Chief Executive Officers of FDIC Regulated Financial Institutions 

The FDIC’s Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) encourages its regulated 

financial institutions to conduct the annual self-assessment of its 2017 diversity policies and 

practices as outlined in the Interagency Policy Statement Establishing Joint Standards for 

Assessing the Diversity Policies and Practices of Entities Regulated by the Agencies (Policy 

Statement). 

The Standards identified in the Policy Statement offer guidance and a framework that enable an 

institution to voluntarily assess its diversity and inclusion practices in several key areas: 

 Organizational Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion

 Workforce Profile and Employment Practices

 Procurement and Business Practices – Supplier Diversity

 Practices to Promote Transparency of Organizational Diversity and Inclusion

 Entities’ Self-Assessment

The assessments enable OMWI to identify best practices and create action plans to assist our 

regulated financial institutions in support of their diversity and inclusion practices. The FDIC 

provides the Diversity Self-Assessment of FDIC Regulated Financial Institutions instrument to 

assist its institutions with their self-assessment. The electronic self-assessment instrument, the 

associated guidance for completing and submitting the assessment, and other resources are 

available on the FDIC’s website at www.fdic.gov/about/diversity. 

Please forward this information to your Chief Diversity Officer and/or Supplier Diversity Officer 

or equivalent. As a reminder, although your submission of the diversity self-assessment is 

voluntary, we would greatly appreciate it if you send your self-assessment for calendar year 2017 

to the FDIC, which is your primary federal financial regulator. Please submit your diversity selfassessment to Section342@fdic.gov by March 31, 2018. 

For further information related to the Policy Statement and the submission of the diversity selfassessments, please contact Victor Christiansen, Chief, Minority and Women Business and 

Diversity Inclusion Branch at (703) 562-2623 or by email at VChristiansen@fdic.gov.

Sincerely, 

/s/

Saul Schwartz 

Acting Director
FYI: An Update on Emerging Issues in Banking

FDIC Publishes Corrections to Basel II Capital Impact Study

August 5, 2004

Overview

The FDIC has replaced on its website the FYI dated December 8, 2003, titled 

"Estimating the Capital Impact of Basel II in the United States," with a corrected 

version. An independent economist has brought to the author's attention a calculation 

error in the paper's estimation of capital requirements for wholesale lending. As a 

result of that error, the paper's estimates of capital requirements for wholesale lending 

were lower than what the underlying assumptions and methodology should have 

implied. The error was not sufficiently material to have affected the paper's overall 

conclusions about the proposed capital framework that existed in December, 2003. 

The revised version is being published solely to correct the historical record. It does 

not reflect changes in the Basel II framework made subsequent to the release of the 

original paper. That new framework is described in "International Convergence of 

Capital Measurement and Capital Standards," published by the Basel Committee on 

Banking Supervision in June, 2004, with the agreement and support of the FDIC. The 

revised paper is available at https://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/fyi/index.html. 

About FYI

FYI is an electronic bulletin summarizing current information about the trends that are 

driving change in the banking industry, plus links to the wide array of other FDIC 

publications and data tools. 

Disclaimer

The views expressed in FYI are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect 

official positions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Some of the 

information used in the preparation of this publication was obtained from publicly 

available sources that are considered reliable. However, the use of this information 

does not constitute an endorsement of its accuracy by the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation.

Last Updated 08/052004
<PAGE>
                                   EXHIBIT 12

            INTERNATIONAL LEASE FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
     COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK
           DIVIDENDS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2002 AND 2001
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        2002           2001
                                                                      --------       --------
                                                                            (Unaudited)
<S>                                                                   <C>            <C>
Earnings:
Net Income                                                            $248,388       $240,659
    Provision for income taxes (a)                                     138,549        132,520
    Fixed charges                                                      450,592        468,252
    Capitalized interest                                                30,446         28,373
                                                                      --------       --------
  Earnings as adjusted (A)                                            $807,083       $813,058
                                                                      ========       ========

Preferred dividend requirements                                         12,406       $  8,482
Ratio of income before provision for income taxes to net income            156%           155%
                                                                      --------       --------
  Preferred dividend factor on pretax basis                           $ 19,353       $ 13,147
Fixed Charges:
  Interest expense                                                     407,078        405,638
  Capitalized interest                                                  30,446         28,373
  Interest factor of rents                                              13,068         34,241
                                                                      --------       --------
  Fixed charges as adjusted (B)                                        450,592        468,252
                                                                      --------       --------

Fixed charges and preferred stock dividends (C)                       $469,945       $481,145
                                                                      ========       ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    (A) divided by (B)                                                   1.79x          1.74x
                                                                      ========       ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred stock dividends
    (A) divided by (C)                                                   1.72x          1.69x
                                                                      ========       ========
</TABLE>


----------

(a)  Includes $8,180 of taxes related to cumulative effect of accounting change
     in 2001.
# L_2008060EN.01003201.xml

| 5.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 60/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 60/32

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 18 February 2008

on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on certain aspects of air services

(2008/198/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 80, paragraph 2, in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 5 June 2003 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 5 June 2003 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement.

| (2) | The Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Community, an agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on certain aspects of air services (the Agreement) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Community, an agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on certain aspects of air services (the Agreement) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement.

| (3) | The Agreement was signed on behalf of the European Community, subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Decision 2006/550/EC (1). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Agreement was signed on behalf of the European Community, subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Decision 2006/550/EC (1).

| (4) | The Agreement should be approved, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Agreement should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement between the European Community and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on certain aspects of air services is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

Article 2

The president of the Council is authorised to designate the person empowered to make the notification provided in Article 8(1) of the Agreement.

Done at Brussels, 18 February 2008.

For the Council

The President

D. RUPEL

---

(1)  
  OJ L 217, 8.8.2006, p. 16.

1

---