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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 1:16-cr-00048-TLS-SLC

)

LARMONDO R. WATTS also known as )

Larmondo Watts )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, CHIEF JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge

Susan Collins, on April 25, 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 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 Chief 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 25th day of April 2017.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

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
 Functional Foods Research: Peoria, IL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NCAUR Homepage
                    About FFR
                        Mission Statement
                                    Strategic Goals
                                    Major Accomplishments
                                    Research Projects
                                    FFR PersonnelSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Docsheadline bar Mission Statement
               Major Accomplishments
               Strategic Goals


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
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
 Application Technology Research: Wooster, OH
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Departments
                        Agricultural Engineering
                                    Entomology
                                    Horticulture
                                    Plant Pathology
                                    IR-4 programSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Virtual Growerheadline bar Virtual Grower Tutorials
               Virtual Grower
               Virtual Grower 3 Model
               Virtual Grower Articles
               Virtual Grower En Espanol
               VG Question Form


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
#### Joseph Cobbs, Appellant, v Run Transit, Inc., et al., Defendants, and S & M Truck Corp., Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated June 22, 1984, as, upon granting reargument and vacating his default in appearing at oral argument of a prior motion to vacate a prior default, adhered to its original determination which found him to be in default and dismissed the action, insofar as it is asserted against respondent S & M Truck Corp.

*364Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for Special Term to refuse to vacate the dismissal of the action against S & M Truck Corp. In order to vacate a default, the movant bears the burden of demonstrating an adequate excuse for the default, as well as a meritorious claim *(see, e.g., Salvagne v Transamerica Ins. Co.,*93 AD2d 761; *Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v Atlantic Sandblasting Serv.,*58 AD2d 751).

In October of 1981, Special Term ordered the plaintiff to appear for examinations before trial. Plaintiff failed to appear. The court also directed plaintiff to appear for a physical examination. An appointment with a physician was made; however, plaintiff failed to show up. Plaintiff’s own attorney eventually found it necessary to withdraw from his continued representation of plaintiff because of the latter’s consistent failure to cooperate. A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3216 was made by defendant S & M Truck Corp. However, the court stayed the determination of this motion in order to give plaintiff the opportunity to retain new counsel. Plaintiff failed to abide by the court’s order to retain counsel within the 60 days provided. After four months had elapsed, S & M Truck Corp. again moved for dismissal. The return date of this motion was adjourned three times and plaintiff still had not yet retained counsel. The court then granted plaintiff an additional 45 days within which to retain counsel and to vacate his prior default. When this motion was finally heard, nearly four months and three adjournments later, plaintiff’s new counsel did not appear for oral argument.

In light of this protracted history of neglect, we cannot say that Special Term improvidently exercised its discretion in refusing to relieve plaintiff of the consequences of his defaults.

In addition, plaintiff has failed to submit an affidavit of merit. In any event, the action against S & M Truck Corp. would not have been successful. Plaintiff was injured during the course of his employment in a vehicle that was being driven by a coemployee. Under the Workers’ Compensation Law, recovery against the owner of the vehicle, in this case, S & M Truck Corp., is precluded *(see, Naso v Lafata,*4 NY2d 585; *Heritage v Van Patten,*59 NY2d 1017; *Kenny v Bacolo,*61 NY2d 642). Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
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
 Cotton Quality and Innovation Research: New Orleans, LA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area New Orleans, Louisiana Southern Regional Research Center Cotton Quality and Innovation Research





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

Newsheadline bar   ARS News Articles


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
Exhibit 32 (b)



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Form 10-QSB of United Financial Banking Companies, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, I, Lisa M. Porter, Chief Financial Officer of United Financial Banking Companies, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



|(1) | such Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in such Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of United Financial Banking Companies, Inc.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ Lisa M. Porter                    
|                                      
|Lisa M. Porter Chief Financial Officer



20
Exhibit 10.15 

 

 

 

 

May 20, 2004

 

 

Mr. David M. Davis

43250 Mission Hills Way

Leesburg, VA 20176

Dear Dave:

     We are pleased to inform you of certain changes to your basic and other compensation from the Company due to your promotion to Executive Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer. This letter outlines the changes to your compensation. 

     Effective May 18, 2004, your salary of record was increased from $300,000 to $385,000. The new salary will be reduced by 17 percent consistent with the salary reduction effective for all executive vice president level employees. Your annual paid salary will be $319,550. 

     In addition to your increased salary, your target percentage under the Incentive Compensation Plan ("ICP") will be increased to 60 percent of your base salary and may be increased for results in excess of the target up to a maximum of 120 percent of base salary. Your target percentage pursuant to the terms of the Long-Term Incentive Plan ("LTIP") for US Airways Group, Inc. will be increased to 80 percent of your base salary and may be increased for results in excess of the target up to a maximum of 160 percent of base salary. 

You are also being granted an additional 150,000 shares/options with 25 percent vesting 1 year from the effective date of the grant, May 18, 2004, 25 percent at the 2nd year, 25 percent at the 3rd year, and 25 percent at the 4th year from the effective date of the grant, which was May 18, 2004. The shares/options will be divided on the basis of 68 percent shares, 32 percent options, that is, 93,000 restricted stock and 57,000 options. The exercise price for these options is $1.51, which was the fair market value of US Airways stock on the May 18th grant date.

In addition, you became eligible to receive miscellaneous executive officer perquisites including an annual car allowance of $9,000 which is paid to you in monthly installments and reimbursement of tax and financial planning expenses incurred up to $10,000 annually.

Please let me know if you have any questions about these benefits.

Sincerely,

 

 

Jerrold A .Glass
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
 Corn, Soybean and Wheat Quality Research: Wooster, OH
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Groups
                        Corn & Soybean Virus Lab
                                    Soft Wheat Quality LabSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Wooster, Ohio Corn, Soybean and Wheat Quality Research Docs







Businessheadline bar 
 **COLLABORATORS LOGIN** Soft Wheat Quality Laboratory at Wooster, Ohio currently is participating in collaborative studies with the Wheat Quality Council and the U.S. Wheat Associates. The SWQL also cooperates with the following public and private wheat breeding programs, by providing quality data for the individual test lines submitted to the lab: Public:  Cornell University Louisiana State University Michigan State University North Carolina State University The Ohio State University Purdue University University of Georgia University of Illinois University of Kentucky University of Maryland University of Missouri Virginia Tech  Private: Beck's Seed Dow AgroSciences GreenLeaf Genetics Hyland Seeds KWS Cereals Limagrain Pioneer Rupp Seed Syngenta Seeds WestBred  Other: USDA ARS PSRU U.S. Wheat Associates Wheat Quality Council


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
* Pursuantto 5TH CIR.R.47.5,the court has determined thatthis opinion should

not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances setforth

in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 21, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-30711

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BRIAN D HOLLOWAY

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:05-CR-20221

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Brian D. Holloway

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Holloway has filed a response. Our

independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Holloway’s response

discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for
No. 06-30711

2

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
#### HOFFMAN, Appellant, v. MURRAY, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by George Hoffman against John L. Murray. L. Fassler, for appellant. N. Heinsheimer, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
(26 App. Div. 614.)

#### SCHWEITERING et al. v. ROTHSCHILD et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 11, 1898.)

Replevin—Affidavit—Description of Property.

In an action of replevin, in which the affidavit upon which the requisition' was issued simply referred to some pieces and numbers of yards and other-unintelligible numbers, *held*insufficient, -under Code Civ. Proc. § 1695, which requires such a description of the chattel to be replevied that the sheriff may be informed as to the particular property in question, and that other creditors-may be informed as to the claims sought to be asserted by the plaintiff.

Appeal from special term.

Action by Herman H. Schweitering and others against Justus Rothschild and others. From an order denying motion to vacate requisition' on affidavit in replevin, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and RUMSEY, McLAUGHLIN,. and INGRAHAM, JJ.

Franklin Bien, for appellants.

VAN BRUNT, P. J.

The affidavit upon which the requisition was issued was clearly defective. Section 1695 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that the affidavit to be delivered to the sheriff must particularly describe the chattel to be replevied. The affidavit does' not describe the property. It simply refers to some pieces and numbers-of yards, and other unintelligible numbers. There is nothing whatever to designate the property, or to indicate to the sheriff what property was to be taken under the writ. " It is necessary that this provision should be complied with, in order that the sheriff should be informed by the papers presented to him as to the particular property' which he is called upon to seize, and that other creditors may be informed as to the claims sought to be asserted by the plaintiff in the replevin action. We think that the affidavit utterly failed to comply with-the provisions of the Code above referred to, and that the motion to set aside the requisition should have been granted.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and’ the motion granted, with $10 costs. All concur.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00016-HAB-SLC document 1 filed 03/05/15 page 1 of 5
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00016-HAB-SLC document 1 filed 03/05/15 page 2 of 5
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00016-HAB-SLC document 1 filed 03/05/15 page 3 of 5
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00016-HAB-SLC document 1 filed 03/05/15 page 4 of 5
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00016-HAB-SLC document 1 filed 03/05/15 page 5 of 5
[No. 21352-4-II.

Division Two.

October 17, 1997.]

#### Jerry Reid, *Respondent,*v. William Sesko, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kit-sap County, No. 95-2-01067-1, George L. Wood, J., entered October 17, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, C.J., concurred in by Bridgewater and Hunt, JJ.