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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

ANTONIO CANTU, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Cause No. 3:16-CV-425 RLM 

(Arising from 3:11-CR-40 RLM) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

On July 7, 2017 defendant Antonio Cantu filed a motion to correct his 

sentencing classification [Doc. No. 19]. Mr. Cantu asks this court to reassign him 

to a lower security facility based on errors in his initial sentencing. It’s the 

Bureau of Prison, not the court, that decides where a prisoner will be confined. 

18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). Mr. Cantu’s proper course of remedy to challenge errors in 

his sentencing is a motion to vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or an 

appeal to the circuit court. The court, recognizing that Mr. Cantu is proceeding 

pro se, will construe his current motion as if it were a petition made under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons stated below, the court must deny Mr. Cantu’s 

petition. 

This court considered and denied a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition, 

certified by the court of appeals, on January 2, 2016. Mr. Cantu then appealed 

to the court of appeals, which found that he had not made a substantial showing 

of a denial of a constitutional right with regards to the district court’s denial of 
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition. The court of appeals subsequently denied his 

request for a certificate of appealability. 

This 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion isn’t certified by the court of appeals, so the 

doesn’t have jurisdiction to consider the motion; Mr. Cantu hasn’t received 

authorization from the court of appeals for this court to consider it. 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(b)(3)(A), 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). The court, therefore, cannot hear Mr. Cantu’s 

latest motion to vacate his judgment. 

For the foregoing reason, the court DENIES the Mr. Cantu’s motion to 

vacate [Doc. No. 19]. 

 SO ORDERED 

 ENTERED: January 4, 2019 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

 Judge, United States District Court
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
 Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center: Stuttgart, AR
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Stuttgart, Arkansas Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News

Newsheadline bar   ARS News Articles  USDA Research Center in Stuttgart Commemorates 25 Years of Contributions to the Rice IndustryAug 02, 2023Preparing U.S. Rice for a Parched FutureMay 07, 2020Brown Rice Variety Packs Antioxidant PunchJan 28, 2020Previously Unknown Rice Blast Resistance IsolatedMay 23, 2018Project Aims to Biofortify Rice for Improved Nutritional ValueMay 28, 2013Researchers Determine Beneficial Compounds in Whole-grain Rice VarietiesApr 15, 2013USDA Links Gene Flow Between Weedy and Domesticated Rice to Rising Carbon Dioxide LevelsMay 23, 2012New Rice Varieties Offer Benefits to GrowersOct 31, 2011Examining Rice Genes for Rice Blast ResistanceOct 17, 2011ARS Scientists Honored for Technology Transfer EffortsJun 08, 2010ARS Scientists Help Sequence Genome of Potato Late Blight PathogenSep 09, 2009ARS Honors Top Scientists for 2006Mar 06, 2007U.S. Rice Collection Proves a Genetic Treasure ChestJul 12, 2006Rice Researchers Fight Straighthead Disease and Improve Grain QualityOct 28, 2005


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
[No. 20383-9-II.

Division Two.

August 28, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Duane Lee Summers, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 94-1-04715-1, Thomas Felnagle, J., entered April 9, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J., concurred in by Morgan and Armstrong, JJ.
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, et al.

1:16-cv-00247

Sky Hill Homes, Inc., By Larry Myers, et al.

Barry Light

4505 Troy Court

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46808

John D. LaDue

Sean J. Quinn

LaDue Curran & Kuehn LLC

205 W. Jefferson Blvd., Suite 200

South Bend, IN 46601

06/25/2016

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00247-TLS-SLC document 1-2 filed 06/25/16 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-00247

0.00

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00247-TLS-SLC document 1-2 filed 06/25/16 page 2 of 2
#### BOOKSIN, Appellant, v. ROBINSON, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Action by Samuel Booksin against Robert J. Robinson.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court, affirmed, with costs.
#### DONNELLY v. McARDLE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November Term, 1897.)

Action by Michael Donnelly against Patrick J. McArdle.

No opinion. Motion denied. See 43 N. Y. Supp. 560.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000714560
<NAME> US AIRWAYS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,223,761
<SECURITIES>                                   857,068
<RECEIVABLES>                                  453,424<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                    192,191
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,841,685
<PP&E>                                       6,168,954
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,624,118
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,849,972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,674,296
<BONDS>                                      2,440,193
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     603,744
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,849,972
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,414,130
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,896,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             196,637
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                631,055
<INCOME-TAX>                                    98,734
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            532,321
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   532,321
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Receivables are presented net of allowances.
<F2>EPS calculations are not relevant because US Airways, Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of US Airways Group, Inc.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1135

BRENDA MATTINGLY NORMAN, formerly known as

Brenda C. Mattingly,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge;

Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-97-3040-JFM)

Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: February 28, 2000

Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mindy Gae Farber, David K. Heasley, JACOBS, JACOBS & FARBER, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Sean D. Wallace, County Attorney,

Rhonda L. Weaver, Associate County Attorney, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order granting summary

judgment to the defendant on the plaintiff’s action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1994

& Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Norman v. Prince George’s

County, No. JFM-97-3040 (D. Md. Jan. 5, 1999). 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Lee, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant asserts that the court erred in failing to suppress evidence of a “one-on-one” showup conducted at the scene of the crime. Although such procedure is not ideal, it is tolerated in the interest of prompt identification, especially when it is proximate in time and place to the scene of the crime *(People v Love,*57 NY2d 1023, 1024; *People v Cole,*100 AD2d 442, 445-446). Here the witness gave a detailed description of the perpetrator at the scene and identified defendant 20 to 25 minutes after he was apprehended. The fact that the defendant stood between two police officers was not inherently suggestive *(see, People v Brnja,*50 NY2d 366, 372; *People v Johnson,*102 AD2d 616, 627). Although the court erred in admitting bolstering testimony relating to the witness’ prior identification *(People v Trowbridge,*305 NY 471), strong identification evidence offered by the prosecution rendered the error harmless *(see, People v Mobley,*56 NY2d 584, 585; *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Hyman Maas, J. — criminal possession of stolen property, second degree.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and O’Donnell, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Isaac Mayrant, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agresta, J.), rendered September 8, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Although the prosecutor’s summation contained inflammatory and unwarranted comments, we affirm the judgment of conviction because there was strong evidence of guilt, prompt curative instructions were given *(People v Gibbs,*59 NY2d 930; *People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396; *People v Cuevas,*99 AD2d 553; *People v Tayeh,*96 AD2d 1045), a number of the improper comments were not objected to (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818; *People v Dordal,*55 NY2d 954; *People v Gonzalez,*102 AD2d 895; Richardson, Evidence [Prince 10th ed], § 538), and the record indicates that the jury carefully focused on the evidence during its deliberations *(People v Galloway, supra; People v Gross,*51 AD2d 191). In short, defendant received a fair trial *(People v Gonzalez, supra).*Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.
NO. 12-14-00304-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

LESLIE RACHELLE DAVIDSON, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is signed by Appellant 

and her counsel. No decision has been delivered in this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant’s 

motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

Opinion delivered January 14, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JANUARY 14, 2015

NO. 12-14-00304-CR

LESLIE RACHELLE DAVIDSON,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0772-14)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss 

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and 

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and 

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. and Hoyle, J.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     Exhibit 11
                          COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION
            STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


                                                        Quarter ended March 31,
In millions, except per share amounts                       1997       1996
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Primary earnings per share:-

Shares used in computing earnings per share:
     Weighted average number of shares outstanding         274.1       267.7
     Incremental shares attributed
           to outstanding options                            8.9         8.4
                                                         --------    --------
                                                           283.0       276.1
                                                         ========    ========

Earnings:
     Net income                                          $   387     $   234
                                                         --------    --------

Earnings per common and common equivalent share          $  1.36     $  0.85
                                                         --------    --------

Earnings per share - assuming full dilution:-

Shares used in computing earnings per share:
     Weighted average number of shares outstanding         274.1       267.7
     Incremental shares attributed to
           outstanding options                               8.9         8.4
                                                         --------    --------
                                                           283.0       276.1
                                                         ========    ========

Earnings:
     Net income                                          $   387     $   234
                                                         --------    --------

Earnings per common and common equivalent share          $  1.36     $  0.85
                                                         --------    --------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:15-CR-46 RLM 

)

DARRELL L. DUNCAN )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations upon a plea of guilty entered on August 4, 2015. Accordingly,

the court ADOPTS those findings and recommendations [docket # 15], ACCEPTS

defendant Darrell Duncan’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant guilty of

Count 1 of the Indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 922(g)(3), and

924(e). 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: August 26, 2015 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge, United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana
EXHIBIT 32.1
 WRITTEN STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (i)
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
 Dated: August 7, 2008
    /S/ Steven F. Udvar-HazySTEVEN F. UDVAR-HAZYDated: August 7, 2008
    /S/ Alan H. LundALAN H. LUND -37-
EX-35.3
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
Centerline Servicing Inc.

The undersigned, Keith Crandall, Servicing Officer of Centerline Servicing Inc.,
(f/k/a ARCap Servicing, Inc.), the Special Servicer under that certain Pooling
and Servicing Agreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as of
June 1, 2007 ("Transaction Closing Date"), relating to the Bear Stearns
Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2007-PWR16, hereby certifies as follows:


1. a review of the activities of the Special Servicer during the preceding
   calendar year or portion thereof commencing from and after the Transaction
   Closing Date and of the performance of the Special Servicer under the
   Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under the undersigned
   officer's supervision; and

2. to the best of the undersigned's knowledge, based on such review, the
   Special Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Pooling and
   Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such year, or
   portion thereof commencing from the Transaction Closing Date.

Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given
them in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, as of the 7th day of March, 2008, I have hereunto signed my
name.



/s/ Keith Crandall
Keith Crandall
Servicing Officer of
Centerline Servicing Inc.,
a Delaware corporation
---

March 29, 2011VIA EDGAR United States
Securities and Exchange Commission



|Re: | Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (the "Company")
|--- | ----------------------------------------------
|    |                                               
|    | Annual Report on Form 40-F                    
|    |                                               
|    | Consent of Expert                             

This letter is provided in connection with the Company's Form
40-F annual report for the year ended December 31, 2010, (the Annual Report)
to be filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (the SEC).

I, J. David Gaunt, P.Geo., hereby consent to the use of my name
in connection with reference to my involvement in the preparation of the
resource estimate in the following technical report (the "Technical
Report"):

- Preliminary Assessment of the Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska dated
  February 17, 2011

and to references to the Technical Report, or portions thereof,
in the Annual Report and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of the
information derived from the Technical Report related to me in the Annual
Report.

I have read the Companys Annual Report and confirm that it
documents fairly and accurately represent the information that supports the
disclosure.

Yours truly,



/s/ J. David Gaunt

---

J. David Gaunt, P.Geo.

Hunter Dickinson Inc.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Laron BLOUNT, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-7665.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 2004.

Decided May 4, 2004.

Laron Blount, Appellant pro se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Laron Blount seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Blount has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*