alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

MELISSA TUTTLE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SALLIE MAE, INC.

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 1:13-cv-00183-JD-RBC

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), Plaintiff, MELISSA TUTTLE and

Defendant, NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., formerly known as SALLIE MAE, INC., stipulate,

and the Court hereby orders, as follows:

The dispute between the parties has been settled, therefore, the claims asserted by

Plaintiff, MELISSA TUTTLE, against Defendant, NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., formerly

known as SALLIE MAE, INC., in the above-captioned proceeding are hereby dismissed, with

prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1).

Dated: July 1, 2014

KROHN & MOSS, LTD.

/s/ Ryan Lee

Ryan Lee

Attorney for Plaintiff,

MELISSA TUTTLE

USDC IN/ND case 1:13-cv-00183-JD-RBC document 19 filed 07/01/14 page 1 of 2
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

2

Dated: July 1, 2014

/s/ Bonnie L. Martin

Bonnie L. Martin

Attorney for Defendant,

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., formerly known as

SALLIE MAE, INC

18324555.1

USDC IN/ND case 1:13-cv-00183-JD-RBC document 19 filed 07/01/14 page 2 of 2
#### SPANGEHL, Respondent, v. SPANGEHL, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 10, 1899.)

Action by Magdalena Spangehl against Louis W. Spangehl.

No opinion. Order modified so as to disallow the twenty-third amendment to proposed case, for the reason that the exception claimed to have been taken at this point appears in the stenographer’s minutes, and as modified affirmed, without costs to either party. See 53 N. Y. Supp. 1115.
#### Mary J. Tifft et al., Appellants, v Frank E. Benson et al., Respondents.

Mikoll, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Kahn, J.), entered February 3, 1984 in Rensselaer County, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense in each defendant’s answer.

Plaintiff Mary Jane Tifft (hereinafter plaintiff) was injured in an accident on State Route 66 in Rensselaer County. She was proceeding eastward on Route 66 behind the vehicle owned by Robert Ormond and driven by Frank Benson. Benson attempted a left turn onto County Route 45 and collided with John Bubie’s car as it was proceeding westward on Route 66. The Bubie vehicle then entered the eastbound lane of Route 66 and struck plaintiff’s vehicle head-on.

In addition to bringing this action against Benson, Ormond and Bubie, plaintiff and her husband also named the County of Rensselaer as a defendant, alleging that the county was negligent in failing to provide adequate traffic signs, markings and controls, or a left-turn lane. Each defendant interposed an affirmative defense based on plaintiff’s failure to wear the seat belt in her car. Plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment dismissing the affirmative defenses, asserting that defendants could not, as a matter of law, meet their burden of proof upon said affirmative defense. Special Term denied the motion, finding that triable issues of fact exist as to the seat belt defense.

There must be an affirmance. Plaintiffs urge that defendants will be unable to lay a proper foundation to introduce crash scene photographs upon which their seat belt expert’s opinion is *1007based and, without their expert’s opinion, their defense must be dismissed. It would be premature at this point to so conclude. This is essentially a factual question and its resolution is properly left to the trial of the matter (see, *Cohen v Herbal Concepts,*100 AD2d 175, 177, *affd*63 NY2d 379).

Order affirmed, with costs to the County of Rensselaer. Kane, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

 

I, David W. Kalish, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 of One Liberty Properties, Inc. (“the Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”):

 

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

 

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

 
| Date:  | May 9, 2011 |   | /s/   David W. Kalish       |
|--------|-------------|--------|-----------------------------|
|   |        |   | David   W. Kalish           |
|   |        |   | Senior   Vice President and |
|   |        |   | Chief   Financial Officer   |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27980-27981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13034]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket Nos. 76N-0048 and 95D-0094]


Compliance Policy Guides (CPG's); Revocation

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
revocation of six CPG's because they contain outdated regulatory 
guidance. This action is being taken to ensure that FDA's CPG's reflect 
current FDA policy.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 26, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald C. Varsaci, Center for Food 
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-22), Food and Drug Administration, 
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-205-4251.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is revoking the following six CPG's 
because they contain outdated regulatory guidance:
     (1) CPG 7101.02--``Caffeine, Ingredient in Carbonated Beverages''
     (2) CPG 7105.06--``Orgeat or `Orzata' Sirup, Definition and 
Labeling''
     (3) CPG 7105.08--``Sirup-Labeling--Use of Descriptive Statements''
     (4) CPG 7105.10--``Candy Pills--Representation as Drugs''
     (5) CPG 7128.01--``Bithionol in Cosmetics''
     (6) CPG 7108.19--``Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) in Certain 
Freshwater Fish''

    [[Page 27981]] Dated: May 15, 1995.
Gary J. Dykstra,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 95-13034 Filed 5-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-59

)

BRANDON M BETZ )

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 September 20, 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 him to which the plea is

offered;

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

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

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

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

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

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

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the single-count Indictment, and have

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

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

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

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

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 20th day of September, 2013.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
April 14, 2015



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

TOM J. JONES, Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 00084

- CV V.

DINH TRAN & SONNY & ANNA, LLC , Appellee s

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on January 12, 2015 . Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Tom J. Jones

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
[No. 38728-6-I.

Division One.

September 22, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Peter D. Moore, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 94-1-01351-8, Gerald L. Knight, J., entered May 3, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
# C_2008181EN.01001701.xml

| 18.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 181/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 181/17

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5162 — Avnet/Horizon)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 181/03)

On 26 June 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5162. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5162. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
# C_2008090EN.01000201.xml

| 11.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4867 — BNP Paribas/Natixis/Slib)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 90/02)

On 31 March 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4867. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4867. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICEROR**

**PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report, on Form 10-Q, of Sun Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”),for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Wilmer D. Leinbach, Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge

 

1.                                       The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for theperiods covered by the Report.

 

 
|   | /s/ Wilmer D. Leinbach                 |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                   |
|   | Exec. VP & Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                                   |
| Date:  |    November 14, 2003    |   |   |
|        |                                        |        |  |  |

 

1

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 1:15-cr-00053-TLS-SLC

)

ISRAEL BONILLA, also known as )

Israel Bonilla-Fuentes )

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 Judge

Susan Collins, on April 20, 2016, with the written consents of Defendant, counsel for

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 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 Defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

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

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

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

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

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty and that Defendant

be adjudged guilty of the offenses charged in Counts 1 and 3 of the Indictment, and have

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

Recommendation be accepted and 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 20th day of April 2016.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Salvatore Rota, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.), rendered September 12,1983, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Judgment modified, on the law, by reducing the conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree to one of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and vacating the sentence imposed. As so modified, judgment affirmed.

The People proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as found by the Trial Judge, that defendant was in possession of stolen property. Marylou Murray, the owner of the stolen property, testified that one pair of stolen cufflinks was 18-carat gold and was purchased in Switzerland in 1965 for 250 Swiss francs. She also testified that a stolen floor safe had been purchased in about 1968 for over $150, and that a stolen camera had been purchased in 1965 for over $100. There was no testimony as to the value of the other items stolen, which included some “white” and “yellow metal” jewelry, a Columbia eight-track player, a Remington fluff and dry blow dryer and a safe deposit box. There was no evidence submitted with regard to the market value of any of the stolen items. Under such circumstances, there was insufficient proof to establish that defendant was in possession of stolen property having an aggregate value in excess of $250, a necessary prerequisite for conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree *(People v James,*111 AD2d 254; *People v Cahill,*83 AD2d 589; *People v Bell,*55 AD2d 624; *People v Freeman,*44 AD2d 843). However, the evidence presented did establish the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and we have modified the judgment accordingly. There is no need to remit for resentence since defendant has already served the maximum time to which he could be sentenced on the criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree conviction *(see,*Penal Law §§ 165.40, 70.15 [1]). Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B) OF THE U.S. SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934  In connection with the annual report of Earth Life Sciences, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2015 (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:  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.  Dated: May 27, 2015/s/ Angelo MarinoAngelo MarinoPresident
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1978 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1978

     To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic fiber tow.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2005

  Mrs. Cubin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic fiber tow.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ACRYLIC FIBER TOW.

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

``      9902.55.02       Acrylic fiber tow  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (polyacrylonitril                                                  31/2008
                         e tow) consisting
                         of 1 to 12 sub-
                         bundles crimped
                         together, each
                         containing 24,000
                         filaments (plus
                         or minus 0.06)
                         and 4-8 percent
                         water, such
                         acrylic fiber
                         containing a
                         minimum of 92
                         percent
                         acrylonitrile,
                         not more than 0.1
                         percent zinc, and
                         average filament
                         denier of 1.5
                         decitex (plus or
                         minus 0.08)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         5501.30.00)......

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

TYQUAN STEWART, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 1:16-CV-138-TLS

)

ALLEN COUNTY JAIL, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the parties Stipulation to Dismiss [ECF No. 94], filed 

on July 24, 2018. In their stipulation, the parties have agreed to dismiss this case with prejudice.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Court ACCEPTS the 

parties’ Stipulation to Dismiss [ECF No. 94]. The Court also DENIES AS MOOT the Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 93].

SO ORDERED on July 26, 2018.

s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00138-TLS-SLC document 95 filed 07/26/18 page 1 of 1