alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 2:15-CR-130

) 2:16-CR-28

JOSE LUIS MORALES, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Andrew P. Rodovich, filed on October

27, 2016. Magistrate Judge Rodovich has recommended that Jose Luis

Morales’ supervised release be revoked and that he be sentenced to

the Bureau of Prisons for a period of ten months, with no

supervised release to follow. No party has filed an objection to

date, and the time period for doing so has passed. Therefore, upon

due consideration, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Rodovich. Accordingly, Jose

Luis Morales’ supervised release is revoked and he is sentenced to

10 months of incarceration, with no supervised release to follow. 

DATED: November 23, 2016 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

RICHARD OWENS )

 )

 v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:00cr34

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on a motion to appeal in forma pauperis. For the

following reasons, the motion will be denied.

Discussion

On April 22, 2004, this court entered an order denying petitioner Richard Owens’

(“Owens”) motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On June 6, 2005, this court denied

Owens’ motion to reconsider. On August 10, 2005, Owens filed Notice of Appeal and

Application for Certificate of Appealability. On August 16, 2005, this court denied Owens’

Application for Certificate of Appealability.

In his § 2255 motion, Owens claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, violation of the

Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, improper grand jury selection, invalid criminal statute,

false testimony by the government, and disparity of sentence compared to co-defendants. In his

motion for reconsideration, Owens again claimed that he was denied effective assistance of

counsel, that the government used false testimony and that his right to a speedy trial was

violated.

In his motion for Certificate of Appealability, Owens claimed that the indictment in his criminal

case was improperly constructively amended and varied from the elements proven at trial.

USDC IN/ND case 1:00-cr-00034-WCL-RBC document 159 filed 09/28/05 page 1 of 2
2

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis should not be granted where the trial court certifies

that “it is not taken in good faith”. 28 U.S.C.1915(a) (1994). In this case, further appeal on the

grounds asserted by petitioner would be frivolous. As noted in this court’s order denying

Certificate of Appealability, the majority of Owens’ claims center on his allegation that he was

deprived of effective assistance of counsel. However, the record is clear that Owens’ counsel

followed acceptable strategy throughout this case. While Owens, after being found guilty and

sentenced to prison, continues to think of ways in which his trial could possibly have been better,

Owens has failed to make any showing that his counsel performed deficiently or that he was

deprived of a fair trial. Likewise, Owens has failed to show that his appellate counsel was

ineffective. Rather, Owens has merely shown that he disagrees with some of the issues his

appellate counsel chose to present on appeal. As discussed in the order denying Owens’ § 2255

petition, it is sound strategy for appellate counsel to present only the strongest arguments on

appeal, and to not litter the appellate process with a huge array of hopeless claims. As the

motions underlying the appeal are totally meritless and frivolous and not taken in good faith, this

court hereby DENIES Owens’ motion to appeal in forma pauperis.

Entered: September 28, 2005.

 s/ William C. Lee 

 William C. Lee, Judge

 United States District Court

 

USDC IN/ND case 1:00-cr-00034-WCL-RBC document 159 filed 09/28/05 page 2 of 2
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Dairy Forage Research: Madison, WI
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Madison, Wisconsin U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center Dairy Forage Research People





- Find a Person
- Find a Location
- ARS Organization Chart
- People
- Diane Amundson
- KC Cifizzari
- Emily Diaz Vallejo
- Alison Duff
- Jose Franco
- Elizabeth French
- John Grabber
- Rebecca Heidelberger
- Kenneth Kalscheur
- Lisa Kissing Kucek
- Elizabeth Matejczyk
- Kristine Niemann
- Priyanka Patel
- Vii Pszczolkowski
- John Raasch
- Jim Richmond
- Heathcliffe Riday
- Michelle Schwab
- Neal Tilhou
- Matthew Volenec

Priyanka  Patel    Agricultural Engineer /ARSUserFiles/58012/Patel2.jpeg
 Priyanka PatelAgricultural Engineer 608-216-3310 1925 Linden Dr. W Madison, WI 53706 Dairy Forage Research


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             408
<SECURITIES>                                         3
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,999
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        198
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,702
<PP&E>                                           7,560
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,559
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,448
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,485
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           142
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,315
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,448
<SALES>                                          4,411
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,411
<CGS>                                            2,109
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,370
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  34
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (912)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (322)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (590)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Sandra Castro, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 20-0585 (UNA)

)

Party City of Bailey’s Crossroads, Inc., )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This plaintiff filed a civil action last year following the Virginia Employment 

Commission’s decision to deny her application for unemployment benefits. The Court dismissed 

the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Castro v. Party City of 

Bailey’s Crossroads, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-1598 (D.D.C. June 12, 2019). The plaintiff appealed, and 

the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the appeal for 

lack of prosecution. See Castro v. Party City of Bailey’s Crossroads, Inc., No. 17-7115 (D.C. Cir. 

Jan. 22, 2020). Now before the Court is the plaintiff’s new complaint which, in essence, is an 

effort to pursue the appeal. The D.C. Circuit’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s prior appeal is a matter 

over which this Court lacks jurisdiction. See, e.g., Panko v. Rodak, 606 F.2d 168, 171 n.6 (7th 

Cir. 1979) (“[I]t seems axiomatic that a lower court may not order the judges or officers of a higher 

court to take an action.”). 

The Court will grant the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and will 

dismiss the complaint and this civil action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

An Order is issued separately.

DATE: April 23, 2020 AMY BERMAN JACKSON

United States District Judge

4/23/2020
Phil A. HUGHES, petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al.

No. 12-9506.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

*2791Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; andd. Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the Company’s board of directors: (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: December 14, 2010 /s/ David Seton   David Seton   President and Chief Executive Officer
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Vegetable Crops Research: Madison, WI
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    ScientistsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Madison, Wisconsin Vegetable Crops Research People B. bee lab





- Home
- All Publications
- Outreach
- Photos
- Videos
- Bee Blog
- Pollinator Behavior and Gene Flow
- Pollinator Preferences
- Hybridization and Introgression
- Alfalfa Selfing Management
- Pollinators and Global Warming
- Other Research
- Research Projects (VCRU)
- Publications in ARIS
- Current
- Previous
- How to Assess a Hive

Videosheadline bar Our lab made "The World of Bees" video for the virtual 2021 UW-Madison Science Expeditions outreach event.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Leonard A. PELULLO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9525.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

ANDRE EDWARDS, )

)

Petitioner, )

) 

v. ) Case No. 2:15-CV-302

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the: (1) 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Habeas Corpus Petition by a State Prisoner Challenging a Prison

Disciplinary Proceeding, filed by Andre Edwards, a pro se prisoner,

on August 17, 2015 (DE #1); and (2) Motion to Dismiss Petition as

Moot, filed by the respondent on December 14, 2015 (DE #8). For

the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss (DE #8) is

GRANTED and the petition (DE #1) is DISMISSED as MOOT.

BACKGROUND

Andrew Edwards filed this habeas corpus petition pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his loss of 60 days earned credit

time. On March 6, 2015, in case number MCF 15-02-0321, a

Disciplinary Hearing Body (“DHB”) at Miami Correctional Facility

imposed that sanction after they found Edwards guilty of assault. 
DISCUSSION

The respondent moves to dismiss, asserting that after the

petition was filed, Appeal Review Officer Joel Lytle, reconsidered

the case and has vacated the conviction and remanded for a new

hearing before a different DHB. (DE #8-1 at 1; Ex. A.) Accordingly,

the respondent argues that the petition is now moot. (DE #8.)

Edwards has not responded to the motion to dismiss.

Because Edward’s disciplinary sanction has been vacated and

the matter remanded for a new hearing, there is at present no

punishment lengthening the duration of confinement for this court

to review. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003)

(prisoner can challenge disciplinary determination in habeas

proceeding only when he has received punishment that lengthens the

duration of confinement). In other words, there is no longer a

live controversy and the case must be dismissed as moot. See Brown

v. Bartholomew Consol. Sch. Corp., 442 F.3d 588, 596 (7th Cir.

2006) (“For a case to be justiciable, a live controversy must

continue to exist at all stages of review, not simply on the date

the action was initiated.”). If Edwards is dissatisfied with the

outcome of the new disciplinary hearing, he can pursue his

administrative remedies and, if necessary, seek relief in a new

habeas petition.

CONCLUSION

2
For the reasons set forth above, the motion to dismiss (DE #8)

is GRANTED and the petition (DE #1) is DISMISSED as MOOT.

DATED: January 13, 2016 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

3
Gentries THOMAS, petitioner, v. William STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 13-7038.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 101 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12916]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Physics; Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Physics (#1208).
    Date: June 14-16, 1995.
    Place: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 37-252, The 
Marlar Lounge, 70 Vassar Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. David Berley, Program Manager, Laser 
Interferometer Gravitational Observatory, Physics Division, Room 
1015, National Science Foundation, 4201 Arlington Blvd., Arlington, 
VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1892.
    Purpose of Meeting: To review the MIT subactivity of the LIGO 
project including the Research and Development, the Detecter 
Fabrication, and the Facilities Support. Evaluate the past 
activities and assess the proposed program through the end of the 
LIGO construction period (1999) with the view toward the long term 
operations.
    Agenda: To review the MIT subactivity of the LIGO project, the 
past activities and the proposed program.
    Reason for Closing: The Project plans being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; information on personnel and proprietary data 
for present and future subcontracts. These matters are exempt under 
5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 22, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-12916 Filed 5-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.13.3    
    


Amendment No. 9 (the "Amendment") To

Employment Agreement (the "Employment Agreement") between

Andrew Hobson ("Employee") and Univison Management Co. ("Company")  


Employee
and Company agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows: 


        1.     Term. The Term of the Employment Agreement is extended through December 31, 2006, unless earlier terminated in
accordance with the provisions of the Employment Agreement. 



        2.     Salary. The annual Base Salary rate will be: Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000) for the annual period from
January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. 


        3.     Effective Date of Amendment. Upon execution by Employee and Company, this Amendment will become effective as of
January 1, 2004. 


        4.     Other. Except as provided in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions in the Employment Agreement will remain in
full force and effect, and the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, is ratified and confirmed. 



	 	 	UNIVISION MANAGEMENT CO.
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  GEORGE W. BLANK       
 George W. Blank

Chief Financial Officer
	

/s/  ANDREW HOBSON      
 Andrew Hobson	
 	

 	
 	

 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.13.3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Case No. 2:15-cr-130 

 ) 2:16-cr-28 

JOSE LUIS MORALES. ) 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter came before the court for an Initial Appearance on the Amended Petition for 

Warrant for Offender Under Supervision [DE 25] on October 25, 2016. The defendant, Jose 

Luis Morales, did not request a hearing based on the allegations, rather the parties announced an 

agreement had been reached. Having considered the evidence presented, the remarks of 

Assistant United States Attorney Jill Koster and Attorney Roxanne Mendez Johnson, counsel for 

the defendant, and in light of the parties’ agreement it is RECOMMENDED that Jose Luis 

Morales’ supervised release be revoked and sentenced to Bureau of Prisons for a period of ten 

months, with no supervised release to follow. 

 Attorney Mendez Johnson advised Morales of his constitutional rights. Morales was 

convicted of Bank Robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113(a), 2-15-CR-130 and 2-16-CR-28, 

and sentenced to 60 months in the Bureau of Prisons with 36 months of supervised release. A 

condition of his release was to refrain from the use of alcohol. Morales has admitted to Violation 

Number 2 as alleged by the U.S. Probation Office in its Amended Petition for Warrant for 

Offender under Supervision. Morales admitted that on October 19, 2016, he submitted to an 

alcohol breath test administered by his probation officer, which produced a BAC reading of .027 

and to other incidents of relapse, including the use of vodka on October 12, 2016. Morales 

understood that these were violations of his supervised release conditions. 
2 

 All parties were in agreement as to the sentence, and waived a final hearing on the 

violation of supervised release. Morales, while represented by counsel, waived his right to 

appear in person and speak on his own behalf before Judge James T. Moody for sentencing. 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. It is RECOMMENDED that Morales’ supervised 

release be revoked and a ten month sentence be imposed as a result of the admitted violation, 

with no supervised release to follow. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '636(b)(1), the parties shall have fourteen days after being served 

with a copy of this Recommendation to file written objections thereto with the Clerk of Court. 

The failure to file a timely objection will result in the waiver of the right to challenge this 

Recommendation before either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. Willis v. Caterpillar, 

Incorporated, 199 F.3d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zema Systems Corporation, 170 

F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Hunger v. Leininger, 15 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 1994); The 

Provident Bank v. Manor Steel Corporation, 882 F.2d 258, 260-61 (7th Cir. 1989); United 

States v. Johnson, 859 F.2d 1289, 1294 (7th Cir. 1988); Lebovitz v. Miller, 856 F.2d 902, 905 n.2 

(7th Cir. 1988). 

 ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2016. 

 /s/ Andrew P. Rodovich 

 United States Magistrate Judge
March 24, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF M.L.G.J., T.M.J., T.L.W.JR., M.A.J., T.P.R.J., B.W.D. 

III, M.R.J., L.C.J., CHILDREN

NO. 14-14-00800-CV

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights signed 

September 15, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected 

the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court 

below AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

We further order the mandate be issued immediately.