alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 Complete Hemetz2, and 3.
'§ Print your name and address on the reverse
80 that we can rétur the card to you.

@ Attach this card to the back of the malipiece,
or on the front if space permits.

Allen Casty Somnaity Cathe | reece 391
aol Ww. ie ined : ‘ dn

Fout wo a ; OF PROPERTY TO SEIZE OR CONDEMN
“ je? cok iasce
DTT) a a ch ;

9890 9403 0285 5155 5956 74 2 ete Mal Petite Date Return Receipt for ac a
9. Anlisia Nuwabar (Tanstor from service label 6 SalokES RSL ANSG GAN iRaeprypptoatTM | ofprocess to be | wo =
7015 Ob40 OOO? 4471 4350 tal Restricted Dalery Reetiicted Delivery ‘re i om db =
FS Form 3811, April 2015 PSN 7530-82-000-0085 ee ae Domestic Return Recdlet rot pares WS; a m
4526 Redstone Court nnd: 9

- sa

,_ Fort Wayne, IN 46835 Geek forsee 2 2

g

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE,
All Telephone Nambere, and Estimated Tones Available for Service):

a
USMS NIN 11 JAN+16 py
201 W. Superior St., Fort Wayne, IN 46802 18 Pw 1:95
Signature of Attorney other Originator requesting service ou behalf of rane TELEPHONE NUMBER ler
Asia L. Marshall_(PRO/SE) Ciperecant | (260)415-1542 8 dECEMBER 2015

SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF U.S. MARSHAL ONLY DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE

See CS ayn [elie

than one USM 285 is submitted)
Thereby certify and retora that 1 CJ have personally served , Deve logal evidences of service, C] Ihave executed as shown m “Rernarks", the process described
on the individual , company, corporation, etc... at the address on the on the individual , company, corporation, etc. shown at the address inserted below.
1D thereby contify and retara that | ao unable to locate the jodividual, company, corporation, ete. named above (See résarks below)
Name and tite of individnal served (Y nat shown above) (11 A person of suitable age and discretion
. then residing in defendants unmal pace
‘s mrt)
Service Fee Tota] Mileage Charges| Forwarding Fee Tadveaca Dopo Amount owed to Masthal®
inchading endeavors) 37 =

aos 113M ack Coat

Dougal PRIOR EDITIONS MAY BE USED

3. NOTICE OF SERVICE

4, BILLING STATEMENT®: To be retarned to the U.S, Marshal with payment,

if any sxoount is owed. Please remit promptly paysble wo U.S. Marshal. Form USN-285
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT sone

5.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Cause No. 2:16-cr-97 

 ) 

ANTOINE LAMARR CROCKETT. ) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY 

TO: THE HONORABLE JAMES T. MOODY 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 Upon defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11, this matter came on for hearing before the Honorable Andrew P. Rodovich, United 

States Magistrate Judge, on January 17, 2017, 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, 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 Assistant United States Attorney 

Nicholas J. Padilla, and of Attorney Matthew D. Soliday, counsel for the defendant, 

 I FIND as follows: 

1. that the 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; 
2 

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

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

Probation Department will prepare a pre-sentence report based upon the 

sentencing guidelines but 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; 

5. that the 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 to the offense 

charged in Count 1 of the Indictment and have sentence imposed. A presentence report has been 

ordered. 

 ENTERED this 17th day of January, 2017. 

 /s/ Andrew P. Rodovich 

 United States Magistrate Judge
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Donnie Wayne BOWMAN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-4960.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 19, 2006.

Decided April 28, 2006.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellant Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, Acting United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Donnie Wayne Bowman appeals the sixty-three-month sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), and possessing a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (2000). Bowman challenges the reasonableness of his sentence, contending that it is longer than necessary to comply with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)(2) (West 2000 & Supp.2005). We find, however, that the district court sentenced Bowman only after appropriately considering and examining the sentencing guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors, as instructed by *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The court sentenced Bowman within the applicable advisory guideline range and well below the ten-year statutory maximum set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2000). We cannot conclude that, under these circumstances, Bowman’s sentence is unreasonable. *See United States v. Green,*436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.2006) (finding that sentence imposed within properly calculated advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable); *see also United States v. Johnson,*445 F.3d 339, 346 (4th Cir.2006) (No. 05-4378) (finding that district court’s “detailed inquiry into the various circumstances bearing upon [defendant’s] sentence” satisfied *235court’s obligation to consider § 3553(a) factors).

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. 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.*
| **Strategy Map**               |
|--------------------------------|
| Customer                       | Improve Communications | Improve Customer Satisfaction | Strengthen Partnerships |   |
| Financial Stewardship          |   | Improve Use of Resources | Improve Budget & Strategy Alignment |   |
| Internal Process               | Improve Communication Process | Improve Human Capital Management | Improve the Delivery of Services | Improve Governance |
| People, Tools & Technology | Increasing Knowledge, Skills & Abilities | Improve Innovation | Improve Technology |   |
EXHIBIT 99.2

 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, C. Troy Woodbury,  Jr., the Chief  Financial  Officer of Wegener  Corporation
(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, to the
best of my  knowledge,  the  Company's  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q for the
quarter ended May 30, 2003 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission:

     o    fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     o    the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



                                        /s/ C. Troy Woodbury, Jr.

                                        NAME:  C. TROY WOODBURY, JR.
                                        TITLE: TREASURER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
                                               OFFICER (PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
                                               OFFICER)
                                        DATE:  JULY 9, 2003

<PAGE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 1:16-cr-00037-TLS-SLC

)

JONATHAN GASTON )

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 November 28, 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 charge 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 offense charged in the single-count 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 28th day of November 2016.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
First, Keeran argues that the district court erred by denying 

his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call Shelli Hannah on 

his behalf at trial. Keeran asserted that, unbeknownst to him, Hannah 

forged her estranged husband's signature on a check that he attempted to 

cash and thus he did not have the intent to commit burglary and forgery. 

See NRS 205.060; NRS 205.090; NRS 205.110. The district court 

conducted an evidentiary hearing and Hannah did not testify. The district 

court denied this claim because Keeran failed to demonstrate that 

Hannah's testimony would have changed the result at trial. We agree. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying this 

claim. 

Second, Keeran argues that the district court erred by denying 

his claims that counsel was ineffective for stipulating to the admission of 

the forged check and for agreeing with the State on key issues in his 

opening statement. The district court denied these claims because it 

determined that they fell under the purview of counsel's tactical decisions, 

see Rhyne v. State, 118 Nev. 1, 8, 38 P.3d 163, 167-68 (2002), and any 

objection would have been futile, see Ennis v. State, 122 Nev. 694, 706, 

137 P.3d 1095, 1103 (2006). We agree. Accordingly, we conclude that the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 

,dgi4g4' 
Gibbons 

Saitta 

district court did not err by denying these claims. 1Therefore, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge 

Kristina M. Wildeveld 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

1Keeran also argues that the district court abused its discretion at 

sentencing because it relied on the "materially untrue" assumption that he 

was guilty of the crime. We decline to consider this claim because it is 

improperly raised for the first time on appeal. See Davis v. State, 107 

Nev. 600, 606, 817 P.2d 1169, 1173 (1991), overruled on other grounds by 

Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 103 P.3d 25 (2004). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's  audited financial  statements for the quarter ended June 30, 1997
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                  1,687
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        1,687
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          1,687
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      41
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                            (1,149)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            1,687
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          298
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           113
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       113
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              113
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            3.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                            3.21
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6696

EUGENE CLOWERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JON OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of

Corrections; COLIE RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional

Institution; LEAROY CARTLIDGE, Associate Warden; PARKER, of

Classification, in their individual and official capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District

Judge. (2:06-cv-02530-MBS)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 27, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

EuGene Clowers, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD,

PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

EuGene Clowers appeals the district court’s order

rejecting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to dismiss

Clowers’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action for failure to prosecute

but ultimately denying relief on Clowers’ complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Clowers v.

Ozmint, No. 2:06-cv-02530-MBS (D.S.C. filed Mar. 28, 2008; entered

Mar. 31, 2008). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1967 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1967

          To extend the suspension of duty on Acid black 172.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2005

  Mr. Baker introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To extend the suspension of duty on Acid black 172.

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

SECTION 1. ACID BLACK 172.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.75 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Acid black 172) is amended 
by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2008''.
    (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>
```
# C_2008229EN.01001201.xml

| 6.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5282 — Barclays/Computerlinks)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 229/04)

On 22 August 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 32008M5282. 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 32008M5282. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
EXHIBIT 99.1

 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert A. Placek,  the Chief Executive  Officer of Wegener  Corporation  (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, to the best
of my  knowledge,  the Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended  May 30,  2003 (the  "Report")  filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission:

     o    fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     o    the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



                                        /s/ Robert A. Placek

                                        NAME:  ROBERT A. PLACEK
                                        TITLE: CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, PRESIDENT
                                               AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE
                                               (PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
                                        DATE:  JULY 9, 2003

<PAGE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

United States Commission on Civil Rights.

# ACTION:

Notice of Commission public business meeting.

# DATES:

Friday, June 18, 2021, 12:00 p.m. EST.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Angelia Rorison: 202-376-7700; *publicaffairs@usccr.gov.*

# ADDRESSES:

Meeting to take place by telephone and is open to the public by telephone: 887-260-1479, Conference ID #: 9200350. Computer assisted real-time transcription (CART) will be provided. The web link to access CART (in English) on Friday, June 18th, 2021, is *https://www.streamtext.net/​player?​event=​USCCR.* Please note that CART is text-only translation that occurs in real time during the meeting and is not an exact transcript.

## Meeting Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda

II. Business Meeting

A. Discussion and Vote on Release of Racial Disparities in Maternal Health Report

B. Discussion and Vote on Appointments to an Advisory Committee

C. Discussion and Vote on Revision to Commission Bail Reform Report Timeline

D. Management and Operations
      - Staff Director's Report

III. Adjourn Meeting

Dated June 16, 2021.

Angelia Rorison,

Media and Communications Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

[FR Doc. 2021-13117 Filed 6-17-21; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P