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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

MARTHUR DINGLE §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23cv93

JUDGE JOHN STEVENS, JR., ET AL. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Marthur Dingle, an inmate confined at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility, proceeding

pro se, brings this civil rights action against Judge John Stevens, Jr., Assistant District Attorney

Mike Laird and the Port Arthur, Texas, Police Department.

Analysis

The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et. seq., under which this case is brought, does not

contain a specific venue provision. Accordingly, venue is controlled by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. When,

as in this case, jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1391

provides that venue is proper only in the judicial district where the defendants reside or in which the

claim arose. 

Plaintiff complains of events which occurred in Jefferson County, Texas. His claims

concerning such events therefore arose in Jefferson County. In addition, the individual Defendants

appear to reside in Jefferson County. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 124, Jefferson County is located in

the Eastern District of Texas. As a result, venue regarding plaintiff’s claims is proper in this court.

However, while Jefferson County is in the Eastern District of Texas, it is in the Beaumont

Division, rather than the Lufkin Division. When a case is filed in the wrong division, the court

“shall dismiss, or if it be in the interests of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in

which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims will be

transferred to the Beaumont Division of this court.

Case 1:23-cv-00210-MJT-ZJH Document 3 Filed 05/31/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 11
ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, it is ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the

Beaumont Division of this court.

2

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 31st day of May, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00210-MJT-ZJH Document 3 Filed 05/31/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 12
SCPW-19-0000419
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

JANE J. P. LIU, Petitioner,

vs. ALVIN T. ONAKA, Ph.D., in his capacity as Registrar of Vital Statistics for the State of Hawai # i, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Reck tenwald, C.J., Nak ayama, Mc Kenna, Po llack, an d Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Jane J. P. Liu’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on June 4, 2019, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that, based on the information presented to this court, petitioner fails to demonstrate that she is entitled to the requested extraordinary writ. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action); Barnett v. Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-19-0000419 13-JUN-2019 03:06 PMBroderick, 84 Hawai # i 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996) (with

respect to a public official, mandamus relief is available to compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the individual’s claim is clear and certain, the official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is available). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, June 13, 2019. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

MATTHEW RAY MORRIS (4) 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NUMBER 6:23-CR-00066-JDK 

ORDER ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY 

The Court referred this matter to the Honorable John D. Love, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for administration of a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11. The Magistrate Judge conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed 

by Rule 11 and issued Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea. The Magistrate 

Judge recommended that the Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea and adjudge Defendant 

guilty on Count One of the Information. 

The parties have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings. 

The Court hereby ADOPTS the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea 

of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court also accepts Defendant’s plea but defers 

acceptance of the plea agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

In accordance with Defendant’s guilty plea, the Court finds Defendant Matthew Ray 

Morris (4) GUILTY of Count One of the Information, charging a violation of Title 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1) - Possession with the Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7th August, 2023.

Case 6:23-cr-00066-JDK-JDL Document 63 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 129
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           14322
<SECURITIES>                                     57978
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 72300
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   79028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              532
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           104
<OTHER-SE>                                       78392
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     79028
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  2179
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   191
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1988
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1988
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1988
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 19, 2020

No. 04-19-00879-CV

CITY OF LEON VALLEY,

Appellant

v.

Benny MARTINEZ,

Appellee

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CI-08343

Honorable Peter Sakai, Judge Presiding1

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we REVERSE the trial court’s order 

and dismiss Appellee’s suit for want of jurisdiction. Appellee’s motion for expedited 

consideration of this appeal is MOOT. We tax costs of court for this appeal against Benny 

Martinez.

It is so ORDERED on August 19, 2020.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of August, 2020.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 The Honorable Peter Sakai, presiding judge of the 225th Judicial District Court, signed the order being appealed. 

The Honorable Rosie Alvarado is the presiding judge of the 438th Judicial District Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

GLUE WILKINS,

Petitioner

v.

HON. RICHARD A. LEWIS, PRESIDENT 

JUDGE, 12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 155 MM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of December, 2020, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the “King’s Bench Matters” is DENIED. The 

Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the jurist’s name from the caption.
Hamid R. ARDANEH, petitioner, v. MASSACHUSETTS, et al.

No. 18-7433.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT (10)(B)



 EXHIBIT 10(b) 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 







 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Experts” in the Prospectus and to the use of our reports: (1) dated March 29,
2012, with respect to the financial statements of Transamerica Advisors Life Insurance Company of New York, and (2) dated April 23, 2012, with respect to the financial statements of ML of New York Variable Annuity Separate Account D in
Post-Effective Amendment No. 11 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4, No. 333-119797) under the Securities Act of 1933, and the related Prospectus of Merrill Lynch Investor Choice Annuity (IRA Series). 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 
 Des Moines, Iowa 
 April 23, 2012
Jimmy STEELE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6394.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Justice KAGAN took no in the consideration or decision of this petition.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A1 22 0 . W . EARL MCCALL et a l. v

. ALBANY SCALE COMPANY.

W

. Earl M cCal l an d McCal l W i l l i am s , LLC fi l ed b o t h a n o t i ce o f ap p eal an d

an ap pl i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal fro m t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er award i n g at t o rn ey fees t o Al b an y Scal e Co m p an y , p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 (a). We d e n i e d t h e
ap p li cat io n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal o n J an u ary 4
, 2 0 1 6. See Cas e No

. A1 6 D0 1 6 9

. Becau s e t h at d en i al was an ad ju d icat i o n o n t h e m e r i t s , th e do ct ri ne o f res ju d i cat a b ars t h i s d i rect ap peal

. See No r t h wes t S o ci a l & Ci vi c Cl u b

, In c. v. F ra n kl i n , 2 7 6 Ga.
8 5 9
, 8 60 (5 8 3 SE2 d 8 58 ) (2 00 3 ); Ho o k v. B e r g e n , 2 8 6 Ga. Ap p

. 2 5 8
, 2 6 0-2 6 1 (1 ) (6 4 9 SE2 d 3 1 3 ) (2 0 0 7 ). Acco rd i n g l y , t h i s ap peal i s t h erefo re DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i t n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 03/24/2016 March 24, 2016
EXHIBIT 12

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 59-14 Filed 12/08/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1075
4514 Travis Street, Suite 300, Dallas, Texas 75205

Office 214.528.2444♦Fax 214.599.0602

January 5, 2021

Jerral Wayne Jones

c/o Jason Cohen, Esq.

jcohen@DallasCowboys.net

Re: Parentage of Alexandra Davis

Dear Mr. Jones:

This law firm has been retained to represent Alexandra Davis in establishing parentage of 

you as her biological and legal father. 

As I am sure you are aware, Alexandra’s mother is Cynthia Davis from Arkansas. 

Alexandra is 25 years old. I do not feel it is necessary to go into any detail in explaining why 

Alexandra believes you are her biological father. However, Alexandra is more than willing to 

participate in genetic determination.

Texas law provides a relatively simple, non-intrusive, inexpensive, quick procedure for 

establishing parentage if you are willing to cooperate. Hopefully you will avail yourself of this 

opportunity. I am confident that your attorneys can explain the details required under the Uniform 

Parentage Act (the “Act”) for what can be an easy, voluntary process. 

Please have your legal representative(s) contact me within seven (7) days of the date of this 

letter so we can discuss the least intrusive method for moving forward under the Act for 

determining and establishing this parentage issue. No one is trying to embarrass or harass you in 

any way. Hopefully this can be resolved in an amicable manner, which is certainly Alexandra’s 

intent. 

If I do not hear from you or your legal representatives within the seven (7) days, we will 

assume that you have no interest in cooperating and we will proceed with the legal process.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours Very Truly,

Andrew A. Bergman

Andrew A. Bergman

bergman@bergmangray.com

App. 076

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 59-14 Filed 12/08/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1076
`DTCC Repo-US Treasury <30 YR - NYSE LIFFE - NYPC                     Code-045L2T
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 10/23/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000)                            OPEN INTEREST:       42,096
COMMITMENTS
   2,098   17,902    2,013   35,844   19,795   39,955   39,710    2,141    2,386

CHANGES FROM 10/16/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:       -454)
   1,131   -1,759     -254   -1,243      583     -366   -1,430      -88      976

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     5.0     42.5      4.8     85.1     47.0     94.9     94.3      5.1      5.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       40)
       5       11        7       19       20       27       36`

---

Updated October 26, 2012
Randall B. CAUSEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5752.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Joseph J. VIOLA, aka Giuseppe Viola, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8493.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 6, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
In Re Robert N. SMITHBACK, petitioner.

No. 18-5799.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 29416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10295]



[[Page 29416]]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-122, OMB Control No. 3235-0111]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form T-2

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved 
collection of information discussed below.
    Form T-2 (17 CFR 269.2) is a statement of eligibility of an 
individual trustee under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939. The 
information is used to determine whether the individual is qualified to 
serve as a trustee under the indenture. Form T-2 is filed on occasion. 
The information required by Form T-2 is mandatory. This information is 
publicly available on EDGAR. Form T-2 takes approximately 9 hours per 
response to prepare and is filed by approximately 9 respondents. We 
estimate that 25% of the 9 hours per response (2 hours) is prepared by 
the filer for a total annual reporting burden of 18 hours (2 hours per 
response x 9 responses).
    An agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information 
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this 
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day 
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. 
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
by June 13, 2022 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) 
David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and 
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549, or by sending an email to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e0b0b2a1bfad81898c828f98a0938583ce878f96"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e4e4c5f41537f77727c71665e6d7b7d30797168">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: May 9, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10295 Filed 5-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit
32.1
 
 
 Certification
of Chairman of the Board and Co - Chief Executive Officer
 
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 **(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Century Casinos, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
    The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and 
 (2)
    The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company. 
 
 
 
 
 Date: May
10, 2005
 
 
 _________________
 Erwin
Haitzmann
 Chairman
of the Board and Co - Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
32.4
 
 
 Certification
of Chief Accounting Officer
 
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 **(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Century Casinos, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
    The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and
 
 (2)
    The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 
 
 
 
 Date: May
27, 2005
 
 
 /s/ Ray
Sienko
 _________________
 Ray
Sienko
 Chief
Accounting Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HASKEL INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL 10-K.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-30-1998
<CASH>                                       9,710,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,731,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   398,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,450,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            37,127,000
<PP&E>                                      11,613,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,298,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,292,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,667,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    13,941,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,940,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,292,000
<SALES>                                     53,710,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            53,710,000
<CGS>                                       29,202,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,202,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            17,328,000<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                77,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             143,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,477,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,795,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,682,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                 346,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,028,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00
<FN>
<F1>OTHER EXPENSES ARE COMPRISED OF SELLING, GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE,
ENGINEERING, DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT.
<F2>FOR PURPOSES OF THIS EXHIBIT, PRIMARY MEANS BASIC.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

MARIA GUADALUPE PEREZGONZALEZ (3), 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NUMBER 6:23-CR-00066-JDK 

ORDER ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY 

The Court referred this matter to the Honorable John D. Love, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for administration of a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11. The Magistrate Judge conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed 

by Rule 11 and issued Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea. The Magistrate 

Judge recommended that the Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea and adjudge Defendant 

guilty on Count Seven of the Indictment. 

The parties have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings. 

The Court hereby ADOPTS the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea 

of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court also accepts Defendant’s plea but defers 

acceptance of the plea agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

In accordance with Defendant’s guilty plea, the Court finds Defendant Maria 

Guadalupe Perez-gonzalez (3) GUILTY of Count Seven of the Indictment, charging a 

violation of Title 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) - Possession with Intent to Distribute 

Methamphetamine. 

Case 6:23-cr-00066-JDK-JDL Document 119 Filed 05/03/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 351
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3rd May, 2024.

Case 6:23-cr-00066-JDK-JDL Document 119 Filed 05/03/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 352