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.: 2:13-CR-75-JTM-PRC

 )

JAMES DOUGLAS URSCHEL, )

Defendant. ) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY BY DEFENDANT JAMES DOUGLAS URSCHEL

TO: THE HONORABLE JAMES T. MOODY,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant James Douglas Urschel’s 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 June 6, 2013, with the consent of Defendant James Douglas Urschel, counsel for

Defendant James Douglas Urschel, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant James Douglas Urschel’ 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 James Douglas Urschel

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

Attorney and of counsel for Defendant James Douglas Urschel,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant James Douglas Urschel understands the nature of the charge against him to

which the plea is offered;

(2) that Defendant James Douglas Urschel 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 James Douglas Urschel understands what the maximum possible sentence

is, including the effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant James Douglas Urschel

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 James Douglas Urschel has been knowingly and

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

(5) that Defendant James Douglas Urschel is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant James Douglas Urschel 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 James Douglas Urschel’ plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept James Douglas Urschel’ plea of guilty to the offense

charged in Count 1 of the Information and that Defendant James Douglas Urschel be adjudged guilty

of the offense charged in Count 1 of the Information and have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report

has been ordered. Should this Report and Recommendation be accepted and James Douglas Urschel

be adjudged guilty, a sentencing date before Senior Judge James T. Moody 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 6th day of June, 2013.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

Honorable James T. Moody
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No.: 2:14-CR-114-JTM-PRC

 )

LATAVIA RATCLIFF, )

Defendant. ) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UPON PLEA OF GUILTY BY DEFENDANT LATAVIA RATCLIFF

TO: THE HONORABLE JAMES T. MOODY,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant Latavia Ratcliff’s 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 January 30, 2015, with the consent of Defendant Latavia Ratcliff, counsel for Defendant

Latavia Ratcliff, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant Latavia Ratcliff’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 Defendant Latavia Ratcliff under

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

and of counsel for Defendant Latavia Ratcliff,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant Latavia Ratcliff understands the nature of the charge against her to which

the plea is offered;

(2) that Defendant Latavia Ratcliff understands her right to trial by jury, to persist in her pleas

of not guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
her right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that Defendant Latavia Ratcliff understands what the maximum possible sentences are,

including the effect of the supervised release terms, and she 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 Latavia Ratcliff has been knowingly and voluntarily

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

(5) that Defendant Latavia Ratcliff is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant Latavia Ratcliff understands that her answers made at the plea hearing may

later be used against her in a prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for Defendant Latavia Ratcliff’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Latavia Ratcliff’s plea of guilty to the offense charged

in Count II of the Indictment and that Defendant Latavia Ratcliff be adjudged guilty of the offense

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

ordered. Should this Report and Recommendation be accepted and Latavia Ratcliff be adjudged guilty,

a sentencing date before Judge James T. Moody will be set by separate order. Objections to the

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

636(b)(1).

SO ORDERED this 30th day of January, 2015.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

Honorable James T. Moody
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 1:01-CR-93-TS

)

TODD ANDREWS )

OPINION AND ORDER

The Defendant’s sentence upon his conviction for aiding and abetting armed bank

robbery included restitution in the amount of $119,260. Recently, and in accordance with United

States v. Boyd, 608 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2010), the Court amended the Defendant’s Judgment to

reflect that his participation in the Bureau of Prisons Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP) is

voluntary and not mandated by the Court. (Third Amd. J., ECF No. 261.) The Defendant now

requests that his judgment be further modified to order that payment of restitution not begin until

after his release from prison. (Pet. to Modify J., ECF No. 262.) The Defendant wants the Bureau

of Prison (BOP) to cease taking his prison earnings for restitution payments so that he can

instead save money, which he contends will aid in his reintegration to society upon his release.

As part of the Defendant’s sentence, the Court ordered restitution due immediately. This

was proper. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(3) (A), (B) (allowing a court to order the defendant to make

a single lump-sum payment, reasonable periodic payments, or nominal periodic payments);

United States v. Hosking, 567 F.3d 329, 336 (7th Cir. 2009) (stating that § 3572, which is

incorporated by § 3664, creates a preference for immediate payment). However, because the

Defendant was unable to pay the restitution amount immediately, the Court instituted a payment

schedule that would take effect upon his release from imprisonment and placement on supervised

release. This was also proper. See United States v. Sawyer, 521 F.3d 792, 796 (7th Cir. 2008)
(holding that when a defendant cannot pay restitution in full at once, the schedule a court must

set for payment should not begin until after the defendant’s release from prison and that

“[p]ayments until release should be handled through the [IFRP] rather than the court’s

auspices”). The Defendant has presented no basis or authority to challenge the restitution order.

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s pro se Petition to Modify Judgment [ECF No.

262] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED on January 3, 2011.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
Jannie F. Eaddy

Pearline Crosland

Barbara Glasby

Mia Jordan

Robert Nolan

Sam Collicchio

Patricia Hughes

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

This Annual Report was produced by talented and dedicated staff. To these individuals, 

we would like to offer our sincere thanks and appreciation. Special recognition is given 

to the following individuals for their contributions.

Federal Deposit 

2008

Insurance Corporatio
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 115 (Thursday, June 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 32266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12997]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:20 a.m. on Tuesday, June 15, 2021.

PLACE: The meeting was held via video conference on the internet.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: In calling the meeting, the Board determined, 
on motion of Director Martin J. Gruenberg, seconded by Director David 
Uejio (Acting Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), and 
concurred in by Director Michael J. Hsu (Acting Comptroller of the 
Currency), and Chairman Jelena McWilliams, that Corporation business 
required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject 
of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no 
earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest 
did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to 
public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a 
closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), 
(c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the ``Government in 
the Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), 
(c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Requests for further information 
concerning the meeting may be directed to Ms. Debra A. Decker, Deputy 
Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-8748.

    Dated this the 15th day of June, 2021.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
James P. Sheesley,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12997 Filed 6-15-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
EX-35.5
(logo) EMC
Mortgage Corporation

ITEM 1123 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION

The undersigned officers of EMC Mortgage Corporation ("EMC") as servicer
pursuant to the Bear Stearns ALT-A Trust 2006-3 Agreement (the "Agreement")
hereby certify that:

1. A review of EMC's activities during the period from and including January 1,
   2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period") and
   EMC's performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, EMC has fulfilled all of
   its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the
   Reporting Period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 12th
day of March 2008.

By: /s/ David B. Little
David B. Little
Executive Vice President
Default Administration

/s/ William Glasgow Jr.
William Glasgow Jr.
Executive Vice President
Enterprise Operations Services

/s/ Jenna Kemp
Jenna Kemp
Executive Vice President
Investor Administration



2780 Lake Vista Drive, Lewisville, Texas 75067
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1292190 Lewisville, Texas 75029-2190

(logo)MBA
Member
Mortgage Association of America
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 2:15-CR-60 

 )

RALPHAEL CASSIBERRY, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge Upon a Plea of Guilty by

Defendant Jon Ralphael Cassiberry (DE #62) filed on June 2, 2016. 

No objections have been filed to Magistrate Judge Cherry’s findings

and recommendations upon a plea of guilty. Accordingly, the Court

now ADOPTS those findings and recommendations, ACCEPTS the guilty

plea of Defendant Ralphael Cassiberry, and FINDS the Defendant

guilty of Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment. 

DATED: June 29, 2016 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 176 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 176

            To facilitate homeownership in high-cost areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2005

    Mr. Gary G. Miller of California (for himself and Mr. Frank of 
Massachusetts) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To facilitate homeownership in high-cost 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 ``FHA Single Family Loan Limit 
Adjustment Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. FHA SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING MAXIMUM MORTGAGE LIMIT.

    Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 
1709(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (i), by striking ``95 percent'' and inserting 
        ``100 percent'';
            (2) in clause (ii)--
                    (A) by striking ``87 percent '' and inserting ``100 
                percent'' ; and
                    (B) by striking ``for Fiscal Year'' and inserting a 
                comma; and
            (3) by moving subparagraph (A), including clauses (i) and 
        (ii) of such subparagraph, 2 ems to the right.
                                 <all>
```
[No. 39456-8-I.

Division One.

August 25, 1997.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Colleen Marie Gilbert, *Respondent,*and Daniel Steven Gilbert, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 91-3-06942-9, Sally Phillips Pasette, J., entered March 12, 1993. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Grosse, J., concurred in by Coleman and Cox, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40473 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSÉ FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ-MADURAN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-97-CR-9-1

- - - - - - - - - - February 10, 1998 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * José Francisco Hernandez-Maduran appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that he was charged with and pleaded guilty to simple reentry under § 1326(a) and that he could not be sentenced under § 1326(b)(2) because the indictment did not allege that he had a prior aggravated-felony conviction. His argument is foreclosed by this court’s opinion in United States v. Vasquez-Olvera , 999 F.2d 943, 946-47 (5th Cir. 1993).No. 97-40473 -2-
AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:15-CR-33-TLS 

 ) 

WILLIAM CUSTER, JR. ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 162], filed on June 11, 2018. The Defendant has waived objection to 

the Findings and Recommendation. 

The Court being duly advised, ADOPTS the Findings and Recommendation [ECF No. 

162] in its entirety and ACCEPTS the recommended disposition. Subject to this Court’s 

consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c), if 

applicable and necessary, the plea of guilty to the offenses charged in Count 1 of the Indictment 

are hereby ACCEPTED, and the Defendant is adjudged GUILTY of the offenses. 

 The Sentencing Scheduling Order scheduling sentencing-related deadlines and hearings 

will be issued by separate order.

SO ORDERED on June 27, 2018. 

s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 of Pharmos Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Haim
Aviv, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1.    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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/ HAIM AVIV
                                              --------------------------
                                              Haim Aviv
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              August 12, 2002


                                       19
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1647 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1647

  To require that general Federal elections be held during the first 
  consecutive Saturday and Sunday in November, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 2005

 Mr. Hastings of Florida (for himself, Mr. Honda, Mr. Abercrombie, Ms. 
  Lee, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Stark, and Mr. 
  Jefferson) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require that general Federal elections be held during the first 
  consecutive Saturday and Sunday in November, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Election Weekend Act''.

SEC. 2. CHANGE IN GENERAL ELECTION DATE.

    (a) Electors.--Section 1 of title 3, United States Code, is amended 
by striking ``on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November'' 
and inserting ``on the first consecutive Saturday and Sunday in 
November''.
    (b) Congressional Elections.--Section 25 of the Revised Statutes of 
the United States (2 U.S.C. 7) is amended to read as follows:
    ``Sec. 25. The first consecutive Saturday and Sunday in November in 
every even numbered year are established as the days for the election, 
in each of the States and Territories of the United States, of 
Representatives and Delegates to the Congress commencing on the 3d day 
of January thereafter.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to regularly scheduled general elections for Federal 
office held in November 2006 and each second year thereafter.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING TREATMENT OF DAY BY PRIVATE 
              EMPLOYERS.

    It is the sense of Congress that private employers in the United 
States should give their employees a day off on either day of the first 
consecutive Saturday and Sunday in November in 2006 and each second 
year thereafter to enable the employees to cast votes in the Federal 
and other elections held on that day.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:15-CR-65-RL-PRC

 )

JON DOUGLAS AIMUTIS, )

Defendant. ) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY BY DEFENDANT JON DOUGLAS AIMUTIS

TO: THE HONORABLE RUDY LOZANO, JUDGE,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant Jon Douglas Aimutis’ 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 February 26, 2016, with the consent of Defendant Jon Douglas Aimutis, counsel

for Defendant Jon Douglas Aimutis, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant Jon Douglas Aimutis’ 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 Jon Douglas Aimutis

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

Attorney and of counsel for Defendant Jon Douglas Aimutis,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant Jon Douglas Aimutis understands the nature of the charge against him to

which the plea is offered;

(2) that Defendant Jon Douglas Aimutis 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 to his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that Defendant Jon Douglas Aimutis understands what the maximum possible sentence

is, including the effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant Jon Douglas Aimutis

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 Jon Douglas Aimutis has been knowingly and

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

(5) that Defendant Jon Douglas Aimutis is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant Jon Douglas Aimutis 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 Jon Douglas Aimutis’ plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Jon Douglas Aimutis’ plea of guilty to the offense

charged in Count 1 of the Indictment and that Defendant Jon Douglas Aimutis 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 Jon Douglas

Aimutis be adjudged guilty, a sentencing date before Judge Rudy Lozano will be scheduled.

Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen

days. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

So ORDERED this 26th day of February, 2016.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2