alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 32075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12650]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: June 16, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
June 8, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 706 to Competitive Product List. 
Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2021-99, CP2021-
102.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2021-12650 Filed 6-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-56

)

AMANDA J. MCBRIDE )

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 December 9, 2013, 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 her to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands her right to trial by jury, to persist in her plea 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 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 her answers may later be used against her 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 Count 6 as charged in the six-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 9th day of December, 2013.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

CRST SPECIALIZED )

TRANSPORTATION, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO: 1:16-cv-00034-JTM-SLC

)

FIVE STAR LOGISTICS, LLC, )

 )

 Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

On January 27, 2016, Plaintiff CRST Specialized Transportation, Inc., filed a complaint

against Defendant Five Star Logistics, LLC (“FSL”), alleging that this Court has diversity

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (DE 1). The complaint recites that Plaintiff is an

Indiana corporation with its primary place of business in Indiana. (DE 1 ¶ 1). It further alleges

“[u]pon information and belief,” that the “members of FSL are not residents or citizens of

Indiana.” (DE 1 ¶ 3). 

Plaintiff’s allegations with respect to FSL’s citizenship are inadequate for purposes of

establishing diversity jurisdiction. “Allegations of federal subject matter jurisdiction may not be

made on the basis of information and belief, only personal knowledge.” Yount v. Shashek, No.

Civ. 06-753-GPM, 2006 WL 4017975, at *10 n.1 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2006) (citing Am.’s Best Inns,

Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992)); see Ferolie Corp. v.

Advantage Sales & Mktg., LLC, No. 04 C 5425, 2004 WL 2433114, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28,

2004).

Furthermore, a limited liability company’s citizenship “for purposes of . . . diversity
jurisdiction is the citizenship of its members.” Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th

Cir. 1998). Therefore, the Court must be advised of the identity and citizenship of all of FSL’s

members to ensure that none of the members share a common citizenship with Plaintiff. Hicklin

Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 347 (7th Cir. 2006). Moreover, citizenship must be “traced

through multiple levels” for those members of FSL, who are a partnership or a limited liability

company, as anything less can result in a dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Mut. Assignment &

Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff cannot, as

it attempts to do here, simply allege a “naked declaration that there is diversity of citizenship” by

asserting that “the members of FSL are not residents or citizens of Indiana.” Thomas v.

Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007). 

As the party seeking to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of

demonstrating that the requirement of complete diversity has been met. Chase v. Shop‘N Save

Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997). Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to

supplement the record by filing an amended complaint that properly alleges the citizenship of

each of the parties on or before February 11, 2016.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 28th day of January 2016.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge 

2
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Terrance J. Lillis, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D requiredto be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of PrincipalLife Income Fundings Trust 2007-88 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report isincluded in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 27, 2008   /s/ Terrance J. Lillis   Terrance J. Lillis  Chief Financial Officer- Retirement and Investor Services
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

MICHAEL S. JONES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-476

)

ROGER V. BRADFORD, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on the complaint (DE 1) filed

by Michael S. Jones, a pro se prisoner, on October 13, 2015. Jones

is suing State court Judge Roger V. Bradford. He alleges that Judge

Bradford “violated due process and due course of law, and equal

protection of the law, he violated the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article One,

Section Twelve and Twenty Three of the Indiana Constitution.” DE 1

at 4. Jones alleges that these violations occurred in “Porter

County Courtroom #1.” DE 1 at 3. 

“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a

pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and

citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,

the Court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint. 
Judge Bradford has absolute immunity for judicial acts which

are within the jurisdiction of his court. This is true even if his

“exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave

procedural errors.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978).

“The Superior Court is a court of general jurisdiction” Storm v.

Storm, 328 F.3d 941, 946 n.3 (7th Cir. 2003), therefore Judge

Bradford has absolute immunity for the judicial rulings he made

which Jones alleges violated his rights. 

For the reasons set forth above, the court DISMISSES this case

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

DATED: October 26, 2015 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United State District Court

-2-
[No. 38722-7-I.

Division One.

September 2, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Elizabeth Ann Hunt, *Defendant,*Anthony Lenaire Curry, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 93-1-07246-1, Robert H. Alsdorf, J., entered April 29,1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Baker, C.J., concurred in by Kennedy and Becker, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3859-3860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1244]



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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Southwest Gas Storage Co.; Notice of Filing

[Docket No. MG91-2-004]
January 12, 1995.
    Take notice that on January 5, 1995, Southwest Gas Storage Company 
(Southwest), filed its revised standards of conduct under Order Nos. 
497 et. seq.\1\ and Order Nos. 566 et seq.\2\ Southwest states that it 
is revising its standards of conduct to incorporate the changes 
required by Order No. 566-A 

[[Page 3860]]
and the Commission's December 7, 1994 order.\3\

    \1\Order No. 497, 53 FR 22139 (June 14, 1933), III FERC Stats. & 
Regs.para. 30,820 (1988); Order No. 497-A, order on rehearing, 54 FR 
52781 (December 22, 1989), para.30,868 (1989) III FERC Stats. & 
Regs. Order No. 497-B, order extending sunset date, 55 FR 53291 
(December 28, 1990), III FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 30,908 (1990); 
Order No. 497-C, order extending sunset date, 57 FR 9 (January 2, 
1992), III FERC Stats. & Regs. para.30,934 (1991), rehearing denied, 
57 FR 5815 (February 18, 1992), 58 FERC para.61,139 (1992); Tenneco 
Gas V. FERC (affirmed in part and remanded in part), 969 F. 2d 1187 
(D.C. Cir. 1992); III FERC Stats. & Regs. para.30,958 (December 4, 
1992), 57 FR 58978 (December 14, 1992); Order No. 497-E, order on 
rehearing and extending sunset date, 59 FR 243 (January 4, 1994), 65 
FERC para.61,381 (December 23, 1993); Order No. 497-F, order denying 
rehearing and granting clarification, 59 FR 15336 (April 1, 1994), 
66 FERC para.61,347 (March 24, 1994); and Order No. 497-G, order 
extending sunset date, 59 FR 32884 (June 27, 19940, III FERC Stats. 
& Regs. para.30,996 (June 17, 1994).
    \2\Standards of Conduct and Reporting Requirements for 
Transportation and Affiliate transactions, Order No. 566, 59 FR 
32885 (June 27, 1994), III FERC Stats. & Regs. para.30,997 (June 17, 
1994); Order No. 566-A, order on rehearing, 59 FR 52,896 (October 
20, 1994), 69 FERC para.61,044 (October 14, 1994).
    \3\69 FERC para.61,310 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 or 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214 (1994)). All such 
motions to intervene or protest should be filed on or before January 
27, 1995. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining 
the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make 
protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a 
party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on 
file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-1244 Filed 1-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Steven F. Udvar-Hazy, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of International LeaseFinance Corporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and wehave:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.
Date: July 27, 2004
/S/ Steven F. Udvar-Hazy
#### Tonsey *v.*The State

*Retailing Liquor Without License.*

(Decided June 6, 1907.

44 South. 183.)

*Intoxicating Liquors; Unlawful Sale; Indictment; Mvidence.*— Under au indictment in code form for retailing liquor without license proof may be offered and a conviction had for a sale made in violation of a local law. Section 5077, Code 1896.

Appeal from Montgomery City Court.

Heard before Hon. W. H. Thomas.

Tom Tonsey was convicted for retailing liquor without license and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Mark D. Brainard, for appellant. — No brief came to the Beporter.

Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for the State. — No brief came to the Beporter.

DOWDELL, J.

The indictment was in Code form. Under the indictment a sale made in violation of a local law could be shown. — Section 5077, Cr. Code 1896; *Olmstead v.*State, 89 Ala. 16, 7 South. 775; *Ulmer v.*State, 61 Ala. 208; *Sills v.*State, 76 Ala. 92.

The demurrer to the indictment was properly overruled. This being the only question presented on the record, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Anderson and McClellan, JJ.:. concur.
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   I, Michael T. Moore, the Chief Financial Officer of Here Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Date:   October 14, 2010Signed:/s/ Michael T. MooreName:Michael T. MooreTitle:Chief Financial Officer,
Principal Financial Officer     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   I, Mark K. Ryun, the Chief Executive Officer of Here Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Date:   October 14, 2010Signed:/s/ Mark K. RyunName:Mark K. RyunTitle:Chief Executive Officer
Principal Executive Officer
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

 FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

) 

v. ) Cause No. 1:16-CR-33 

) 

ALA EL BASHATLY ) 

MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT 1

Comes now the United States of America and moves the Court pursuant 

to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to dismiss Count 1 

as charged in the Indictment filed in this cause on June 22, 2016. The United 

States intends to proceed to trial only on Counts 2 through 5 of the Indictment. 

WHEREFORE, the United States seeks leave of the Court pursuant to 

Rule 48(a) to dismiss Count 1 as charged in the Indictment filed on June 22, 

2016, with prejudice. 

Respectfully submitted, 

THOMAS L. KIRSCH, II 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

 /s/ Stacey R. Speith 

By: Stacey R. Speith 

 Assistant United States Attorney 

E. Ross Adair Federal Bldg. 

& U.S. Courthouse 

1300 S. Harrison Street, Room 3128 

Fort Wayne, IN 46802-3489 

Telephone: (260) 422-2595 

Facsimile: (260) 426-1616 

E-mail Address: Stacey.speith@usdoj.gov 
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on January 8, 2018, I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. I certify that 

all participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users received service 

by the CM/ECF system. 

I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the 

document to the following non CM/ECF participants: 

None. 

 /s/ Megan McKenzie 

 Megan McKenzie 

 Legal Assistant 

OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY 

E. Ross Adair Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse 

1300 South Harrison Street, Room 3128 

Fort Wayne, IN 46802-3489 

Telephone: (260) 422-2595 

Facsimile: (260) 426-1616
case 2:13-cv-00245-RLM-PRC   document 1   filed 07/19/13   page 1 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00245-RLM-PRC   document 1   filed 07/19/13   page 2 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00245-RLM-PRC   document 1   filed 07/19/13   page 3 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00245-RLM-PRC   document 1   filed 07/19/13   page 4 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00245-RLM-PRC   document 1   filed 07/19/13   page 5 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00245-RLM-PRC   document 1   filed 07/19/13   page 6 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

ROBERT LASH,

PLAINTIFF,

VS.

CITY OF GARRET, KEITH HEFNER,

ADAM SHEFFIELD, JEFFREY

ARNETT, AND JUSTIN NAWROCKI,

DEFENDANTS.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CAUSE NO. 1:15-CV-325-RLM-SLC

O R D E R

Plaintiff Robert Lash, by counsel, filed a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. (Doc. No. 2). In the petition, Mr. Lash indicates that he is not 

employed, owns no car, and has no dependents. He states that he possesses 

$500.00 in a savings account and $60.00 cash, but has not received any 

money from any source for the past 12 months and is not financially 

dependent on anyone else. Based on this information, his in forma pauperis

petition does not appear to contain complete information. It is unclear how he 

is meeting his daily living expenses such as food, clothing, housing, utilities, 

and caring for the dog that is the basis of his lawsuit. Mr. Lash must properly 

identify any income or benefits he receives in order for the court to fully assess 

his financial status. 

Accordingly, Mr. Lash’s motion will be denied, but he will be granted an 

opportunity to submit another motion fully detailing his financial status. 

Therefore, the court: 

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00325-RLM-SLC document 5 filed 11/06/15 page 1 of 2
-2-

(1) DENIES the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2);

and

(2) GRANTS Mr. Lash to and including December 7, 2015 to file a renewed 

in forma pauperis petition.

If Mr. Lash doesn’t respond by that date, his case will be dismissed 

without further notice for non-payment of the filing fee. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: November 6, 2015

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00325-RLM-SLC document 5 filed 11/06/15 page 2 of 2