alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Northern District of Indiana

Design Basics, LLC

1:16-cv-00170

Westport Homes of Fort Wayne, Inc., and Westport

Homes, Inc.

Westport Homes of Fort Wayne, Inc.

c/o Steven M. Dunn, Registered Agent

9210 N. Meridian Street

Indianapolis, Indiana 46260

John D. LaDue

Sean J. Quinn

LaDue Curran & Kuehn LLC

205 W. Jefferson Blvd., Suite 200

South Bend, IN 46601

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00170-JD-SLC document 1-2 filed 05/19/16 page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

1:16-cv-00170

0.00

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00170-JD-SLC document 1-2 filed 05/19/16 page 2 of 2
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

MAURICE L. MARTIN, ) DOC #740326, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2615 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 27, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Stephen Walker and Debra Johnes Riva, Judges. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Tosha Cohen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laurie Benoit-Knox, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:16-CR-29-TLS 

 ) 

TIMOTHY RYAN ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

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

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 28], filed on July 28, 2016. The Defendant has waived objection to 

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

Recommendation [ECF No. 28] 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 One (1) of the single Count 

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 August 12, 2016. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 2:15 CR 30

)

PETERSON MONTGOMERY )

O R D E R

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge dated February 26, 2019 (DE # 48), to which the parties have waived any

objections (id. at 3), the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are now

ADOPTED. Defendant is ADJUDGED to have committed the violation of his

supervised release described in the April 24, 2018, Petition (DE # 32). Defendant’s term

of supervised release is REVOKED and he is hereby committed to the United States

Bureau of Prisons to serve a term of imprisonment of time served. Upon his release

from the Bureau of Prisons, defendant shall be discharged from any further term of

supervision.

SO ORDERED.

Date: February 27, 2019

s/James T. Moody

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leonard Watson, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), rendered May 5,1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The facts have been considered and determined to be established.

It was error for the court to rule that defense counsel would not be permitted to cross-examine the complainant as to the facts underlying a 1975 adjournment in contemplation of dismissal of a charge of petit larceny and a 1980 adjournment in contemplation of dismissal of a charge of possession of marihuana *(see, People v Allen,*67 AD2d 558, *affd*50 NY2d 898; *People v Ayrhart,*101 AD2d 703). In this one witness identification case, the issue of the complainant’s credibility vis-a-vis that of the defense witnesses assumed paramount importance. Thus, the trial court’s error in refusing to allow defense counsel to question the complainant concerning his alleged commission of prior acts of misconduct which may have affected his credibility *(cf People v Sorge,*301 NY 198) cannot be considered harmless *(see, People v Ayrhart, supra; People v Meurer,*86 AD2d 636; *cf People v Allen, supra).*

Defendant was further prejudiced as a result of several instances of misconduct on the part of the prosecutrix which should not be repeated. While cross-examining one of the defense witnesses, the prosecutrix improperly implied that defendant was wanted by the police for criminal conduct unrelated to this case. During summation, the prosecutrix suggested that defendant might have coerced one of the defense witnesses to perjure himself at trial. She also sought to appeal to the fears of the jury by mentioning the oft-condemned “safe streets” argument.

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
USDC IN/ND case 4:14-mc-00001-PRC document 1 filed 05/13/14 page 1 of 4
USDC IN/ND case 4:14-mc-00001-PRC document 1 filed 05/13/14 page 2 of 4
USDC IN/ND case 4:14-mc-00001-PRC document 1 filed 05/13/14 page 3 of 4
USDC IN/ND case 4:14-mc-00001-PRC document 1 filed 05/13/14 page 4 of 4
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>      0000714256                  
<NAME>     MB SOFTWARE CORPORATION                   
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         855,307
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,823,954
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (54,999)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,414,129
<PP&E>                                         627,690
<DEPRECIATION>                                 222,076
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,327,011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,492,741
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       68,033
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,969,037
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,327,011
<SALES>                                        3,939,472
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,511,034
<CGS>                                          571,562
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  571,562
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,448,430
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             153,580
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   444,748
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
# L_2008011EN.01000601.xml

| 15.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 11/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 11/6

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 20 December 2007

appointing a Lithuanian member and a Lithuanian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

(2008/43/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Lithuanian Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 24 January 2006 the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 24 January 2006 the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1).

| (2) | A seat as a member of the Committee of the Regions has fallen vacant following the end of the mandate of Mr Gediminas PAVIRŽIS. A seat as an alternate member has fallen vacant following the resignation of Mr Edmundas ČESNA, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A seat as a member of the Committee of the Regions has fallen vacant following the end of the mandate of Mr Gediminas PAVIRŽIS. A seat as an alternate member has fallen vacant following the resignation of Mr Edmundas ČESNA,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which ends on 25 January 2010:

| (a) | as a member:
  Mr Gediminas PAVIRŽIS, member of the council of Vilnius district municipality (change of mandate),
  and |
| --- | --- |

(a)

as a member:

Mr Gediminas PAVIRŽIS, member of the council of Vilnius district municipality (change of mandate),

and

| (b) | as an alternate member:
  Mr Andrius KUPČINSKAS, mayor of Kaunas city municipality. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

as an alternate member:

Mr Andrius KUPČINSKAS, mayor of Kaunas city municipality.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 20 December 2007.

For the Council

The President

F. NUNES CORREIA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.

1

---
Exhibit 31.2

                            SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

      I, Patrick L. Milton, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of YDI
Wireless, Inc., certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of YDI Wireless,
Inc.;

      2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

      4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

            a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

            b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

            c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

      5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

            a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely 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
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.


Date: August 16, 2004                  /s/ Patrick L. Milton
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Patrick L. Milton
                                       Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
[No. 38658-1-I.

Division One.

August 18, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Timothy Emanuel Mitchell, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-1-07907-1, Laura Inveen, J., entered April 22, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Public Employees Federation, AFL-CIO, Appellant, and Governor’s Office of Employee Relations et al., Respondents.

Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Klein, J.), entered February 15,1984 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 7510 to confirm an arbitration award.

A dispute between petitioner and respondent Governor’s Office of Employee Relations (hereinafter OER), regarding computation of out-of-State travel reimbursement for employees of respondent Department of Taxation and Finance, culminated in an arbitration award on May 20, 1982 in favor of petitioner. In March 1983, petitioner moved pursuant to CPLR 7510 to confirm the award, naming the “State of New York” as the sole *452respondent. Since the State was not a proper party, Special Term, rather than dismissing the petition, as the State had urged, granted petitioner’s request for permission to add the proper party respondents. An order to that effect was entered September 22, 1983 and, since appeals therefrom have not been perfected, the merits of that decision are not before us. The following day, petitioner served a second notice of petition and petition, both dated September 22, 1983, upon OER and the Department of Taxation and Finance. Apart from the fact that the second petition is directed at different parties, its allegations are identical to those contained in the first petition.

Special Term concluded that the second petition was not an *amended*petition in the prior proceeding, but that it was a new proceeding and, therefore, dismissed it as time barred (CPLR 7510). We reverse.

Petitioner’s failure to label the second petition as an amended one or to make reference in it to the earlier proceeding constitutes a mere defect in form and, absent demonstrable prejudice to respondents, should have been disregarded by Special Term (CPLR 2101 [fj; *see, Covino v Alside Aluminum Supply Co.,*42 AD2d 77, 80). That there was no prejudice to respondents in their ability to defend is apparent. Not only does respondents’ answer to the second petition denote that it is a response “to the amended petition”, but the answers to both petitions are virtually the same. This strongly suggests that respondents knew or believed that the second petition, which was served almost immediately after the order was entered granting petitioner leave to serve the proper party respondents and which bears the same index number as the first petition, was indeed an amended petition and not a newly instituted proceeding. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to indicate that, during the time between service of the two petitions, evidence needed by respondents had grown stale or essential witnesses were lost.

Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, and petition reinstated. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Casey, Weiss and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1910 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Resmethrin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2005 

Mr. ETHERIDGE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Resmethrin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RESMETHRIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following: 

‘‘ 9902.04.42 [5-(Phenylmethyl)–3- 

furanyl]methyl 2,2-dimethyl3-(2-methyl-1-propenyl)cyclopropanecarboxylate 

(Resmethrin) (CAS No. 

10453–86–8) (provided for 

in subheading 2932.19.10) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 1910 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
# C_2008219EN.01000201.xml

| 28.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 219/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 219/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5010 — Berkshire Hathaway/Munich Re/GAUM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 219/03)

On 14 July 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 32008M5010. 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 32008M5010. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 1:16-cr-00031-TLS-SLC

)

DEAN ZIMMERMAN )

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 January 20, 2017, 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 Count 1 of the seven-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 20th day of January 2017.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2