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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff/Respondent, )

)

vs. ) NO. 2:13-cr-81

) 2:16-cv-395

STEVEN BORCHERT, )

)

Defendant/Petitioner. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Proceed in

Forma Pauperis, filed by pro se Plaintiff, Steven Borchert, on

April 12, 2017 (DE #99). 

Borchert indicates he is appealing two orders. First, he is

appealing this Court’s order dated January 30, 2017 (DE #94),

denying his section 2255 motion to vacate the judgment that was

entered on April 23, 2014. Second, he is appealing this Court’s

order dated March 7, 2017 (DE #97), dismissing Borchert’s motion to

alter the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 

“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial

court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). As explained in this Court’s order denying

the section 2255 motion (DE #94), Borchert’s section 2255 was not

timely filed, and the alleged “newly discovered evidence” of a

recent tax audit simply did not show that Borchert’s tax loss was
zero, or that his filing “0" tax returns was not false. This Court

specifically addressed Borchert’s arguments, reviewed the documents

submitted in the supplemental filings, and directly rejected

Borchert’s contention that the paperwork showed he was really

innocent of filing false tax returns. Additionally, this Court

found that Borchert’s motion under Rule 59 was really a merit-based

attack on the Court’s previous ruling, and the Court therefore

dismissed it as an unauthorized successive motion within the

meaning of section 2255. (DE #97.) 

In the present motion, Borchert improperly raises for the

first time an argument under Rule 33, and also improperly raises

for the first time the argument that his “self-representation at

trial fundamentally deprived [him] of constitutional safe guards.” 

(DE #99 at 2.) This appeal is not taken in good faith because no

“reasonable person could suppose that the appeal has some merit.” 

Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000). 

For the reasons set forth above, the motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (DE #99) is DENIED.

DATED: April 19, 2017 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

2
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 400 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 400

  To amend the Federal Power Act to ensure that rates and charges for 
electric energy are assessed in proportion to measurable reliability or 
               economic benefit, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 17, 2011

   Mr. Corker (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Burr, Mr. 
  Graham, Mr. Chambliss, and Mr. Lee) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Power Act to ensure that rates and charges for 
electric energy are assessed in proportion to measurable reliability or 
               economic benefit, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ALLOCATION OF RATES OR CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC ENERGY.

    Section 205 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824d) is amended--
            (1) by striking the section heading and all that follows 
        through ``(a) All'' and inserting the following:

``SEC. 205. RATES AND CHARGES.

    ``(a) In General.--
            ``(1) Requirement.--Subject to paragraph (2), all''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Allocation.--No rate or charge for or in connection 
        with the transmission of electric energy contained in any 
        filing made under subsection (c) or any proceeding initiated 
        under section 206(a) after June 17, 2010, shall be considered 
        just and reasonable unless the rate or charge is based on an 
        allocation of costs for new transmission facilities that is 
        reasonably proportionate to measurable economic or reliability 
        benefits projected, as determined by the Commission, to accrue 
        to the 1 or more persons that pay the rate or charge.''.
                                 <all>
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134344 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134344 

 COA: 266616 

Kent CC: 05-005244-FH 

CURTIS ROY GREEN, SR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 14, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1022 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 29, 2007 

 Clerk
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
 Bioenergy Research: Peoria, IL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NCAUR Homepage
                    About BER
                        Mission Statement
                                    Strategic Goals
                                    Specialized Research ResourcesSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Peoria, Illinois National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research Bioenergy Research Docs





- BER / Bioenergy Research
- BER / Bioenergy Research Project Summaries
- BER Specialized Research Resources
- NCAUR Home
- Bacterial Foodborne Pathogens & Mycology Research Unit (BFP)
- Bioenergy Research Unit (BER)
- Bio-Oils Research Unit (BOR)
- Crop Bioprotection Research (CBP)
- Functional Foods Research Unit (FFR)
- Plant Polymer Research (PPL)
- Renewable Product Technology Research Unit (RPT)

BER Specialized Research Resourcesheadline bar ?  Pilot plant fermenters (30L to 100L) ?  Bench top fermenters (500ml to 10L) ?  Controlled environment for cultivation of yeast,  fungi, and bacteria;  including     strict anaerobes ?  Cell separation and unique product recovery tools ?  Biomass Pretreatment (1ml to 35L reactors)


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
 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

Neal  Tilhou    Biological Science Lab Technician **Neal Tilhou** neal.tilhou@usda.gov Biological Science Lab Technician 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
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I Paul Briggs, hereby certify that:

1. The annual report of the registrant on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the report.



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Paul Briggs                                            
|                                                           
|Paul Briggs                                                
|President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
|March 30, 2011
| Date:  March      30, 2009 | By:    | /s/  Laura Lee      Stewart                    |
|--------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |   | Laura      Lee Stewart                                   |
|                                 |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer               |
|                                 |   |                                                     |
|                                 |   |                                                     |
|                                 |   |                                                     |
| Date:  March      30, 2009 | By:    | /s/  Matthew P.      Deines                    |
|                                 |   | Matthew      P. Deines                                   |
|                                 |   | Executive      Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer |
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #16934 and #16935; Kentucky Disaster Number KY-00085]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 4.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4595-DR), dated 04/23/2021.

*Incident:* Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides.

*Incident Period:* 02/27/2021 through 03/14/2021.

# DATES:

Issued on 06/25/2021.

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 06/22/2021.

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:* 01/24/2022.

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, dated 04/23/2021, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

*Primary Counties:* Ballard.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James Rivera,

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2021-14041 Filed 6-30-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

March 6, 2013

jam

Order 

March 6, 2013

146161

DARRYL MCGORE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 146161

CoA: 312208

ROBERT SANDERS DEPUTY WARDEN, 

OFFICER DELTOUR and MS. MCDONALD,

Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff-appellant having failed to comply 

with the order of November 14, 2012, the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to close 

this file.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Harvey, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.) rendered February 18, 1981, convicting him of rape in the first degree and robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant has failed to make a factual showing sufficient to establish a prima facie case of systematic discrimination in the selection of the petit jury *(see, People v McCray,*57 NY2d 542, *cert denied*461 US 961; *People v Charles,*61 NY2d 321, 329; *People v Galarza,*109 AD2d 892). Defendant’s assertion that no *Sandoval*hearing *(see, People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371) was held has been shown by the People to be erroneous; a *Sandoval*hearing was indeed held. In addition, defendant’s prior convictions were probative on the issue of defendant’s credibility as a witness, and it was not improper for the trial court to permit the prosecutor to question defendant with respect to these convictions *(see, People v Sandoval, supra).*With respect to defendant’s contention that the trial court erred by singling him out as an interested witness as a matter of law, assuming, arguendo, that the charge was improper, the error was harmless in view of the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230; *cf. People v Staples,*103 AD2d 759). Lastly, defendant contends that in the portion of its charge defining reasonable doubt, the trial court improperly equated proof beyond a reasonable doubt with proof to a “moral certainty” and improperly instructed the jury to find him not guilty if their “minds are wavering” or if the “scales are even”. It is well established that such language is improper *(People v Wade,*99 AD2d 474; *People v Ortiz,*92 AD2d 595). However, no exception was taken. In any event, an examination of the entire charge indicates that the concept of reasonable doubt was fully and properly explained to the jury. Therefore, the error does not warrant reversal in the interest of justice *(see, People v Dée,*106 AD2d 582; *People v Ortiz, supra; People v Turrell,*66 AD2d 862, *affd*50 NY2d 400). Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.
#### Matter of Ronald Anthony G., Jr. and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Ronald G., Appellant; Catholic Guardian Society and Home Bureau, Respondent.

[941 NYS2d 573]

Orders ofdisposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan Knipps, J.), entered on or about January 20 and February 2, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, upon a fact-finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent father’s parental rights to the subject children and committed custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Com- the Com*425missioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to plan for his children’s future, as he refused to accept his diagnosis of, and seek treatment for, schizophrenia and refused to utilize the shelter system as a pathway to obtaining suitable housing (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [c]; *Matter of Fernando Alexander B. [Simone Anita W.],*85 AD3d 658, 659 [2011]). The agency was not required to exercise reasonable efforts to return the children to respondent, as his parental rights to seven other children had been involuntarily terminated *(see*Family Ct Act § 1039-b [b] [6]; *Matter of Evelyse Luz S.,*57 AD3d 329, 330 [2008]). In any event, the agency established by clear and convincing evidence that it exercised diligent efforts by referring respondent to mental health treatment programs and encouraging him to use the shelter system in order to obtain suitable housing *(see Matter of Sheila G.,*61 NY2d 368, 384 [1984]).

A preponderance of the evidence supports the finding that it is in the children’s best interests to terminate respondent’s parental rights in order to free the children for adoption by their foster parents *(see*Family Ct Act § 631; *Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). The record shows that respondent is still homeless and has failed to obtain appropriate mental health treatment. By contrast, since birth, the children, now ages four and three, have lived in a loving and stable foster home with foster parents who wish to adopt them and with whom they have bonded *(see Matter of Kie Asia T. [Shaneene T],*89 AD3d 528, 528-529 [2011]). Concur — Friedman, J.E, DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion 

filed March 8, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00089-CR

IN RE DEANDRE DYNELL DEBOEST, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1737576

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 11, 2022, relator Deandre Dynell Deboest filed a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also 

Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court “to grant this application 

for writ of habeas corpus and order petitioner discharged from the illegal restraint

he is currently suffering.”
2

The intermediate courts of appeals have no original habeas-corpus 

jurisdiction in criminal matters. In re Ayers, 515 S.W.3d 356, 356 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding) (citing Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. 

§ 22.221(d)). Original jurisdiction to grant an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus in a criminal case is vested in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the 

district courts, the county courts, or a judge in those courts. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. 

Ann. art 11.05. Therefore, this court does not have original habeas-corpus 

jurisdiction to grant relator’s requested relief. 

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and 

Wilson.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
EXHIBIT32.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Home Director, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Daryl Stemm, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: (1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the issuer.

|  | /s/ Daryl Stemm DarylStemmChief Financial Officer and Secretary |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------|

May 24,2004

----
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPE P.O. BOX 12308,CAPITOLSTATION, AUSTIN,T£%AS-W$ 

## 0FF8C8ALiuS8MESS> -. ,&x®B&ffgt.*<£~ STATE OFTWm&i&Z Ml* PENALTY FOR * 

# 1/7/2015 PRIVATEUSE "- IS" teaarag 000*279598 janos 2015 SMITH, WAYNE Tr. Ct.'No. VW0TOD63&£{§) MAILEDFROWIrWR^27807-0." The Court has dismissed without written order this subsequent application for a wr 

### of habeas corpus. TEX. CODE CRUVTPROq. Art 11.07, Sec. 4(a)-(c). 

### " "* t , Abel Acosta, Clerk WAYNE SMITH " ELLIS I UNIT

- TDC # 1096076 1697 FM 980 HUNTSVILLE, TX 77343 ;o> 02 1M 0004279596

UTF 

# U> 1EBH35 7 ='3i:U 

## |ii]W'lM',li'liih'lh»'iiM"hliiinl!,ll»!;,J,iI',i,H,lliii