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. 1:15-CR-7

)

JARED E. HOCHSTEDLER )

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 Susan Collins, on

February 26, 2015, with the written consents of the Defendant, counsel for the Defendant, and

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

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

The hearing on Defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the Defendant under oath on

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

of counsel for Defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant understands the nature of the charges against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the Defendant’s waiver of indictment is knowing and voluntary;

(3) that the Defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(4) that the Defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant understands that the sentencing guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(5) that the plea of guilty by the Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the Plea Agreement between the

parties;

(6) that Defendant is competent to plead guilty;

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

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

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

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

of guilty and that the Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offenses charged in the Information and

have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

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

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 26th day of February 2015.

/s Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge

2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4771

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus ELIJAH CLAY, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-04-65) Submitted: March 29, 2006 Decided: May 9, 2006 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Elijah Clay pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), and was sentenced as an armed career criminal to the statutory minimum term of fifteen years imprisonment. 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). Clay appeals his sentence, asserting that it violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments under Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004). We affirm. Clay does not dispute that his predicate convictions were “serious drug offenses” as defined in § 924(e)(2), but he contends that a jury should determine whether the offenses were “committed on occasions different from one another,” as required by § 924(e)(1). Clay concedes that, in United States v. Thompson , 421 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1463 (2006), this court held that the Armed Career Criminal Act’s “use of the term ‘occasion’ requires recourse only to data normally found in conclusive judicial records, such as the date and location of an offense, upon which Taylor [v. United States , 595 U.S. 475 (1990)] and Shepard [v. United States , 544 U.S. 13, 125 S. Ct. 1254 (2005)] say we may rely.” 421 F.3d at 286. Thus, Thompson holds that a jury need not find that the prior offenses occurred on different occasions because “this fact is inherent in the convictions themselves, and thus is not among the kinds of facts extraneous to a conviction that Blakelyor Shepardrequires a jury to find.” Id.- 3 - Because the facts necessary to support Clay’s sentence to the statutory minimum fifteen-year sentence under § 924(e) were evident from the “conclusive significance of a prior judicial record,” Shepard , 125 S. Ct. at 1262-63, no due process or Sixth Amendment error occurred. Clay urges us to revisit our decision in Thompson
. However, “a panel of this court cannot overrule, explicitly or implicitly, the precedent set by a prior panel of this court. Only the Supreme Court or this court sitting en banc can do that.” Scotts Co. v. United Indus. Corp. , 315 F.3d 264, 271-72 n.2 (4th Cir. 2002). We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:13-CR-56-TLS 

)

KEANA M. DAVIS )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 47], filed on November 21, 2013. The Defendant has waived objection

to the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 47] 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), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 5 of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and

the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate

order.

SO ORDERED on December 9, 2013. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
#### Matt PADAVICH, personal representative of Christopher Padavich as beneficiary of Life Insurance Policy on the Life of Virginia Padavich, Appellant, v. HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Successor Continental Casualty Company; U.S. Bank, Successor Firstar; Affinion Benefits Group, LLC, Appellees.

No. 11-1814.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 1, 2011.

Filed: Nov. 10, 2011.

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Matt Padavich appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment, in which the court concluded that his son’s estate was not entitled to the benefits of a life insurance policy under which the son had been a beneficiary, because it was beyond genuine dispute that the policy had been cancelled prior to the insured’s death. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ arguments on appeal, and de novo review of the evidence that was before the district court, *see Raines v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am.,*637 F.3d 872, 875 (8th Cir.2011) (standard of review), we conclude that no genuine issue of material fact remained and defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
#### Stephen A. Emmons et al., Appellants, v Country Lincoln Mercury Sales, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.), entered December 12, 1983, which was in favor of defendant Country Lincoln Mercury Sales, Inc., upon a jury verdict.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

This action involved an automobile accident which occurred in New Jersey. When dealing with procedural matters, such as appealability, the burden of proof, and the weight and sufficiency of evidence, the law of the forum, in this instance, New York, governs *(Able Cycle Engines v Allstate Ins. Co.,*84 AD2d 140; *Jackson v Coggan,*330 F Supp 1060). Therefore, in a case such as this, where there is conflicting testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding the accident, since the jury’s verdict *214is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, we will not set it aside *(Pettersen v Curreri,*99 AD2d 774; *Sorokin v Food Fair Stores,*51 AD2d 592).

As to plaintiffs’ contention that a portion of the trial court’s jury charge was erroneous, plaintiffs, having failed to object to that portion of the instruction on the ground raised on appeal, have not preserved the issue for review (CPLR 4110-b; *Piro v Bowen,*76 AD2d 392). This is particularly true where, as here, plaintiffs requested a charge substantially similar to the one given *(Rupert v Sellers,*50 NY2d 881). O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
|   | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 |
|--------|------|------|------|------|------|
| $4.6   | $5.1 | $5.4 | $5.9 | $6.4 |
**Exhibit 10.16**

**SCHEDULE OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION**

For 2010, Westwood Holdings Group, Inc.paid each non-employee member of our Board of Directors a $4,000 annual retainer, $4,000 for each regularly scheduled quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors attended by the member and $1,000 per board or committee meeting attended other thanregularly scheduled quarterly meetings. The Chairman of the Audit Committee receives an additional $4,000 annual retainer. Additionally, upon the date of election or re-election as a member of our Board of Directors, each non-employee director isawarded 1,500 restricted shares of our common stock, which vest approximately 12 months from the date of grant. We review our compensation arrangement for directors from time to time.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to**

**Rule 13a-14(b)/15d-14(b) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934**

**and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

I, Anahita Villafane, ChiefFinancial Officer of Aspyra, Inc. ( the “Company”), certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) orRule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350that:

 

(1)       The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31,2008 (the “Quarterly Report”) complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or780(d)); and

 

(2)       The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| Date: May 15, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Anahita Villafane   |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                    |   | Anahita Villafane       |
|                    |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

This certificationaccompanies the Quarterly Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) underthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shallnot be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

----
----

----

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  November      13, 2009 | By:    |        /s/ Armando Garcia                                                           |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    |   | Armando      Garcia                                                                      |
|                                    |   | President,      Secretary and Treasurer (Principal Executive and Financial      Officer) |

----

----
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00176-JTM document 1 filed 07/08/15 page 1 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00176-JTM document 1 filed 07/08/15 page 2 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00176-JTM document 1 filed 07/08/15 page 3 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00176-JTM document 1 filed 07/08/15 page 4 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00176-JTM document 1 filed 07/08/15 page 5 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00176-JTM document 1 filed 07/08/15 page 6 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00176-JTM document 1 filed 07/08/15 page 7 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00176-JTM document 1 filed 07/08/15 page 8 of 8
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1603

To require the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to 

make video recordings of the examination and testing of firearms and 

ammunition, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2005

Mr. GINGREY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 

Means, 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 require the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives to make video recordings of the examination 

and testing of firearms and ammunition, and for other 

purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fairness in Firearm 

5 Testing Act’’. 
2

•HR 1603 IH 

1 SEC. 2. VIDEO RECORDING OF EXAMINATION AND TESTING 

2 OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION BY THE BU3 REAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, 

4 AND EXPLOSIVES. 

5 Section 1111 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

6 (6 U.S.C. 531) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(e) ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES REGARDING

9 EXAMINATION AND TESTING OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNI10 TION.—

11 ‘‘(1) VIDEO RECORDING REQUIRED.—The Bu12 reau shall make a video recording of the entire proc13 ess of the examination and testing by the Bureau of 

14 an item for the purpose of determining, pursuant to 

15 section 921(a)(3), 922(o), 922(p), or subsection 

16 (a)(3), (a)(4), (d), or (e) of section 925 of title 18, 

17 United States Code, or section 5845(a) of the Inter18 nal Revenue Code of 1986, whether the item is a 

19 firearm and if so, the type of firearm, or of deter20 mining pursuant to section 921(a)(17) of title 18, 

21 United States Code, whether the item is ammuni22 tion, and shall not edit or erase any recording made 

23 pursuant to this paragraph. 

24 ‘‘(2) AVAILABILITY.—

25 ‘‘(A) TO OWNERS.—On request of a person 

26 who claims an ownership interest in an item 
3

•HR 1603 IH 

1 with respect to which a recording is made under 

2 paragraph (1), the Bureau shall make available 

3 to the person, without charge, a digital video 

4 disc that contains a copy of the recording. 

5 ‘‘(B) TO DEFENDANTS.—The Bureau shall 

6 make available to a defendant in a criminal pro7 ceeding involving an item with respect to which 

8 a recording is made under paragraph (1) a dig9 ital video disc that contains a copy of the re10 cording. 

11 ‘‘(3) ADMISSIBILITY AS EVIDENCE.—An item 

12 which the Bureau has determined is a firearm or a 

13 type of firearm or ammunition pursuant to any pro14 vision of law specified in paragraph (1) shall not be 

15 admissible as evidence in any judicial or administra16 tive proceeding unless—

17 ‘‘(A) the Bureau has complied with para18 graph (2) with respect to the item; or 

19 ‘‘(B) such compliance has been waived, in 

20 writing, by the person against whom the item is 

21 offered as evidence.’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

MARTY JAY ROBBINS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-1598 RM

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Marty Jay Robbins, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition to challenge the

revocation of his parole in connection with his conviction and sentence by the Kosciusko

Superior Court under cause number 43D01-0408-FD-259. Before the court can consider a

habeas corpus petition challenging a state proceeding, the petitioner must have previously

presented his claims to the state courts. “This means that the petitioner must raise the issue

at each and every level in the state court system, including levels at which review is

discretionary rather than mandatory.” Lewis v. Sternes, 390 F.3d 1019, 1025-1026 (7th Cir.

2004). 

There are two possible ways to challenge a parole revocation in Indiana: by filing

a post-conviction relief petition, Receveur v. Buss, 919 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), or

by filing a state habeas corpus petition if the inmate is seeking immediate release. Lawson

v. State, 845 N.E.2d 185, 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). An improperly filed state habeas corpus

petition will be converted to a post-conviction petition. Hardley v. State, 893 N.E.2d 740,

743 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) and Ward v. Ind. Parole Bd., 805 N.E.2d 893 (2004). Mr. Robbins
says he hasn’t presented his claims to any state court in any proceeding. He hasn’t

exhausted his state court remedies and this case must be dismissed without prejudice so

that he can exhaust these claims in the state courts. If, after he has ultimately presented his

claims to the Indiana Supreme Court, he has not yet obtained relief, then he can return to

federal court and file a new habeas corpus petition. 

Under Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 11, the court must consider whether to

grant or deny a certificate of appealability. To obtain a certificate of appealability when the

court dismisses a petition on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show that reasonable

jurists would find it debatable (1) whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling

and (2) whether the petition states a valid claim for denial of a constitutional right. Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Mr. Robbins presents an unexhausted claim. Because

there is no basis for finding that jurists of reason would debate the correctness of this

procedural ruling or find a reason to encourage him to proceed further, a certificate of

appealability must be denied. 

For the foregoing reasons the court DISMISSES this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE

pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 because the claim is unexhausted and

DENIES a certificate of appealability pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 11. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: June 3 , 2014

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United State District Court
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

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

          I, Xiao Ping Zhang, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Amendment to Quarterly Report of SORL AUTO PARTS, INC. on Form 10Q/A for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of SORL AUTO PARTS, INC.

| Date:  August 15, 2006 | /s/ Xiao   Ping Zhang     |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------|
|                        |                           |
|                        | Xiao Ping   Zhang         |
|                        | Chief   Executive Officer |
|                        |                      |
|                             |                           |
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 28430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13234]



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



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Health Data Sciences Corporation

    Notice is hereby given that, on May 9, 1995, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Health Data Sciences 
Corporation for itself and on behalf of its members, has filed written 
notification simultaneous with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) 
the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed 
for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery 
of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities to 
the parties are Health Data Sciences Corporation, San Bernardino, CA; 
Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, MA; and New York City Health and 
Hospitals Corporation, New York, NY. The purpose of this Joint Venture 
is to develop and demonstrate enhanced health care information systems. 
The activities of this Joint Venture project will be partially funded 
by an award from the Advanced Technology Program, National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-13234 Filed 5-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M