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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

SCOTT R. BLEVINS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-515

)

DAN H. HAMPTON, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the complaint and in forma

pauperis petition submitted by Scott R. Blevins. (DE # 1, 2.) For

the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES the in forma pauperis

petition (DE # 2) and DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) because Dan H. Hampton has prosecutorial

immunity. 

DISCUSSION

In this case, Blevins sues Dan H. Hampton, the Kosciusko

County Prosecuting Attorney. The only factual basis that Blevins

provides for his claim is: “2008-2009 False Prosecution, Malicious

Prosecution, Loss Wages, False Defamation of Character, False

Confinement, Mental Anguish, Criminal Confinement for 6 months.” DE

# 1 at 2. Though this factual recitation is thin, it is clear that

Blevins is suing Hampton for prosecuting him and for the
consequential injuries that resulted from that prosecution, i.e.

incarceration, loss of employment, etc. 

However, “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the

State’s case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for

damages under § 1983.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431

(1976). “Absolute immunity shields prosecutors even if they act

maliciously, unreasonably, without probable cause, or even on the

basis of false testimony or evidence.” Cooper v. Parrish, 203 F.3d

937, 947 (6th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Moreover, claims for defamation are not actionable under § 1983.

See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712 (1976) (“[W]e hold that the

interest in reputation asserted in this case is neither ‘liberty’

nor ‘property’ guaranteed against state deprivation without due

process of law.”) Therefore this case must be dismissed. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES the in forma

pauperis petition (DE # 2) and DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) because Dan H. Hampton has

prosecutorial immunity. 

DATED: June 7, 2013 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

2
Exhibit 10(a)


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form N-1A of our report dated December 22, 2014, relating to the financial statements and financial highlights
which appear in the October 31, 2014 Annual Reports to Shareholders of LifePath® Active Retirement Portfolio, LifePath®
Active 2020 Portfolio, LifePath® Active 2025 Portfolio, LifePath® Active 2030 Portfolio, LifePath® Active 2035
Portfolio, LifePath® Active 2040 Portfolio, LifePath® Active 2045 Portfolio LifePath® Active 2050 Portfolio, LifePath®
Active 2055 Portfolio (nine of the series constituting BlackRock Funds II), which are also incorporated by reference into
the Registration Statement. We also consent to the references to us under the headings "Financial Highlights", “Financial
Statements” and "Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm" in such Registration Statement.


 


 


PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

February 26, 2015
[No. 37277-7-I.

Division One.

August 11, 1997.]

#### Truck Insurance Exchange, *Respondent,*v. Azim Amira, et al., *Respondents,*Linda T.Y. Lee, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-2-32243-5, Liem E. Tuai and Jim Bates, JJ., entered August 4, September 7 and October 24, 1995. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Grosse, J., concurred in by Baker, C.J., and Webster, J.
[Nos. 36452-9-I; 36485-5-I.

Division One.

September 22, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Cinque Richard Garrett, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, Nos. 94-1-05056-3, 94-1-05057-1, Norma Smith Huggins, J., entered April 14 and April 24, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Grosse, J., concurred in by Cox and Ellington, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I, David R. Brown, certify that:

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-QSB of National Mercantile Bancorp;

 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, 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 thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this reportany change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5.  The small businessissuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the smallbusiness issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.

# ** **

# ** **

| Date:  |  November 15, 2004 |                                     | /s/  DAVID R. BROWN |
|--------|-------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------------------------|
|   |                    | David  R. Brown  Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

----
**EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002I, Tracy A. Kern, as Chief Financial Officer of CHAD Therapeutics, Inc. (the “registrant”), herebycertify that:(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CHAD Therapeutics, Inc.; (2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report; (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly 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 presentedin this quarterly report; (4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;  (b) Paragraph omitted;  (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and(5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 11, 2005 /s/ Tracy A. Kern   Tracy A. Kern        Chief Financial Officer of CHAD Therapeutics, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:16-CR-52-TLS 

 ) 

ANGELA SPEAK ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

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

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 10], filed on September 12, 2016. The Defendant has waived 

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

Findings and Recommendation [ECF No. 10] 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), if applicable and necessary, the plea of guilty to the offense 

charged in the single Count Information 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 September 30, 2016. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:16-CR-37-TLS 

 ) 

JONATHAN GASTON ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

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

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 29], filed on November 29, 2016. The Defendant has waived 

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

Findings and Recommendation [ECF No. 29] 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), if applicable and necessary, 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 December 15, 2016. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FILED

November 13, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

OCTOBER 1998 SESSION

THOMAS LIGHT, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9712-CC-00577

)

Appellant, ) LAWRENCECOUNTYNO. 18,790

)

VS. ) HON. WILLIAM B. CAIN,

) JUDGE

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

) AFFIRMED - RULE 20

Appellee. )

ORDER

The petitioner appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. He

previously entered a best interest plea to one (1) count of aggravated sexual battery

with an agreed sentence of eight (8) years as a Range I, standard offender.

Petitioner contends his guilty plea was the result of ineffective assistance of

counsel. He further contends that the trial court erred accepting his plea in Maury

County when the indictment was pending in Lawrence County.

Petitioner alleges he was induced to plead guilty by counsel who told him that

he would receive the maximum sentence if he went to trial. He further alleges

counsel was ineffective for failing to interview the victim. Petitioner testified at the

post-conviction hearing that he was mentally disabled and on medication when he

entered the plea. Trial counsel's testimony differed from the petitioner's in all

relevant aspects.

Initially, we note the petitioner has failed to prove deficient performance. The

state originally offered petitioner a ten (10) year sentence, but trial counsel

negotiated it down to the minimum sentence of eight (8) years. Trial counsel could

not force the state to make the victim available for an interview; however, counsel

testified that she received a copy of the victim's statement and thoroughly reviewed

it with petitioner. Trial counsel also secured an evaluation of petitioner's

competency. He was declared both competent and sane.
2

The trial court found the petitioner thoroughly understood, and even stated

several times on the record, he was entering a plea that he felt was in his best

interests. The trial court also asked the petitioner if he was under the influence of

alcohol or drugs at the plea hearing. The petitioner responded negatively.

The guilty plea was entered in Maury County although the indictment was

pending in Lawrence County. However, this was discussed at the time of entry of

the plea. The petitioner orally agreed to the entry of the plea in Maury County.

Although Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-214 provides that waiver of venue is to be “in

writing,” the failure to utilize a written waiver in this instance was harmless error in

view of the petitioner’s express oral agreement.

The evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the trial court.

Further, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that, but for counsel's performance, he

would have insisted upon going to trial.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal

Appeals, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Costs are taxed to the state as

the appellant is indigent.

All of which is so ORDERED. ENTER:

________________________

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

CONCUR:

_________________________

PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

_________________________

JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 11-1 filed 03/07/16 page 1 of 2
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 11-1 filed 03/07/16 page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of CEO Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AMCORE Financial, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Kenneth E. Edge, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(1) The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/S/    KENNETH E.
EDGE                 
|Kenneth E. Edge Chief Executive Officer



August 9, 2004



This certification accompanies the
Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.



A signed original of this written statement required
by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to AMCORE Financial, Inc. and will be retained by AMCORE Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# L_2009061EN.01001901.xml

| 5.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 61/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 61/19

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision 2008/421/EC of 5 June 2008 on the application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the Schengen Information System in the Swiss Confederation

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 149 of 7 June 2008
  )

On page 76, Annex I, second sentence of footnote 7:

for:

‘The manual was amended by Commission Decisions 2008/333/EC (OJ L 123, 8.5.2008, p. 1) and 2008/334/JHA (OJ L 123, 8.5.2008, p. 39).’,

read:

‘The manual was amended by Commission Decisions 2006/757/EC (OJ L 317, 16.11.2006, p. 1) and 2006/758/EC (OJ L 317, 16.11.2006, p. 41).’

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of National Mercantile Bancorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott A. Montgomery,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for theperiods covered in the report.

 

 
|   |   |                     | /s/ SCOTT A.  MONTGOMERY |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Scott A.  Montgomery     |
|   |   | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

 

Date:  November 10, 2005

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to NationalMercantile Bancorp and will be retained by National Mercantile Bancorp andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission as an exhibit to the Form 10-QSB and shall not be consideredfiled as part of the Form 10-QSB.

 

1

----
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 34281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13858]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review Panel for Physics; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:
    Name and Committee Code: Virtual Site Review of construction 
progress of the CMS High Luminosity Detector Upgrade (1208).
    Date and Time: August 25, 2021; 10:30 a.m.--6:30 p.m. EDT.
    Place: Cornell University, 109 Clark Hall, Ithaca, New York 14853-
250110027 [verbarlm] Virtual Site Visit via Zoom.
    Type of Meeting: Part-Open.
    Contact Person: Mark Coles, Program Director, Division of Physics, 
National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue., Room 9219, 
Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: (703) 292-4432.
    Purpose of Meeting: Virtual site visit to provide an evaluation of 
the progress of the project at the host site for the Division of 
Physics at the National Science Foundation.
    Agenda: NSF will provide the Zoom coordinates for each meeting (All 
times are Eastern Daylight Time (EDT)).

August 25, 2021

10:30 a.m.-11:00 a.m. Executive Session (Closed)
11:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Presentations on the CMS upgrade (Open)
5:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m. Executive Session (Closed)
6:00 p.m.-6:30 p.m. Closeout presentation by Review Panel (Open)

    Reason for Closing: The work being reviewed during closed portions 
of the virtual site visit include information of a proprietary or 
confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, 
such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the project. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: June 24, 2021.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-13858 Filed 6-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### JOHNSON, Respondent, v. NASSAU ELECTRIC R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 29, 1912.)

Action by Aina Johnson, an infant, by Joel Johnson, her guardian ad litem, against the Nassau Electric Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

RICH, J., taking no part.
[No. 38739-1-I.

Division One.

June 16, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington , *Respondent,*v. Reba V. Reed, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-1-06908-4, Richard A. Jones, J., entered June 3, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Petty, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Levittan, J., at plea and sentence; Jeffrey Atlas, J., at hearing on defendant’s motion to controvert the search warrant), rendered on December 6, 1983, unanimously affirmed. This case is remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings, pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5). No opinion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Bloom, Fein and Milonas, JJ.