alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 1 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 2 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 3 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 4 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 5 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 6 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 7 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 8 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 9 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 10 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 11 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 12 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 13 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 14 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 15 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 16 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 17 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 18 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 19 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 20 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 21 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 22 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 23 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 24 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 25 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 26 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 27 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 28 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 29 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 30 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 31 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 32 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 33 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 34 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 35 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 36 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 37 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 38 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 39 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 40 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 41 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 42 of 43

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL   Document 26-2   Filed 06/05/18   Page 43 of 43
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JON M. SANDS 

Federal Public Defender

J. LEONARDO COSTALES 

Assistant Federal Public Defender 

Louisiana State Bar# 35721 

407 W. Congress, Suite 501 

Tucson, AZ 85701-1355 

Telephone: (520)879-7500 

Attorney for Defendant

Leo_Costales@fd.org

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States Of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Robert Francis Krebs, 

 Defendant. 

CR18-0263-TUC-JGZ (JR) 

MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE 

TO OBJECT TO PSR 

(Unopposed) 

 Robert Francis Krebs, through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves the Court to 

extend his deadline to object to the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) by period of two weeks, from 

February 19, 2021, to March 5, 2021.1

 This extension is necessary because Mr. Krebs has 

requested undersigned counsel to withdraw as counsel and has asked for substitution of 

counsel. If that motion is granted, new counsel will likely require additional time to review 

the PSR and the case. 

AUSA Raquel Arellano was contacted regarding this motion and noted no objection. 

 

1

 Two draft PSRs were disclosed in the case, on February 4, 2021, and February 5, 2021. Counsel takes the position that the latter is the reference point for the deadline as it was a correction of the former by the U.S. Probation Office. 
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: February 17, 2021. 

 JON M. SANDS 

 Federal Public Defender 

 /s/ J. Leonardo Costales 

 J. LEONARDO COSTALES

 Assistant Federal Public Defender
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated statement of operations and consolidated balance sheet and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001041854
<NAME> COMCAST CELLULAR CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          24,422
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (4,870)
<INVENTORY>                                     23,292
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               127,953
<PP&E>                                         686,240
<DEPRECIATION>                                (267,993)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,494,634
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          152,750
<BONDS>                                      1,274,159
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          195,059
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (365,453)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,494,634
<SALES>                                        455,199
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               455,199
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (402,253)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (1,281)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (111,623)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (58,635)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,525
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (37,110)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (37,110)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Case 4:18-cv-00136-CKJ-PSOT Document 1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 1 of 8
Case 4:18-cv-00136-CKJ-PSOT Document 1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 2 of 8
Case 4:18-cv-00136-CKJ-PSOT Document 1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 3 of 8
Case 4:18-cv-00136-CKJ-PSOT Document 1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 4 of 8
Case 4:18-cv-00136-CKJ-PSOT Document 1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 5 of 8
Case 4:18-cv-00136-CKJ-PSOT Document 1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 6 of 8
Case 4:18-cv-00136-CKJ-PSOT Document 1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 7 of 8
Case 4:18-cv-00136-CKJ-PSOT Document 1 Filed 03/12/18 Page 8 of 8
Exhibit 32.2

JMP GROUP INC.

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the periodic report of JMP Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas B. Kilian, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the
best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 7, 2008 |  | /s/ Thomas B. Kilian   
|                     |  | Thomas B. Kilian       
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 800 

Expressing sympathy for the citizens of the Philippines dealing with Tropical 

Storm Ketsana and Typhoon Parma. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 6, 2009 

Ms. SPEIER (for herself, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Ms. BORDALLO, 

Mr. SABLAN, Mr. CAO, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. FILNER, Ms. CHU, 

Ms. RICHARDSON, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. BACA, Mrs. 

CAPPS, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. ROSS, Mr. SIRES, Mr. HONDA, 

Mr. BILBRAY, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. COSTA, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. INGLIS, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, and Mr. WU) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing sympathy for the citizens of the Philippines 

dealing with Tropical Storm Ketsana and Typhoon Parma. 

Whereas, on September 26, 2009, Tropical Storm Ketsana 

made landfall on the Philippines with the heaviest rainfall 

in 40 years equivalent to a typical month of rain during 

monsoon season; 

Whereas 80 percent of the capital, Manila, was submerged 

under water as a result; 

Whereas at least 3,000,000 persons have been affected by 

Tropical Storm Ketsana; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 800 IH 

Whereas more than 135,470 families or 686,000 persons 

have been forced into evacuation centers; 

Whereas the casualties include at least 277 dead, 5 injured, 

and 42 missing; 

Whereas more than 4,640 houses were damaged or destroyed; 

Whereas Tropical Storm Ketsana has caused at least 

$4,800,000,000 in damages; 

Whereas following the devastation caused by Tropical Storm 

Ketsana, Typhoon Parma hit land October 2, 2009, 

bringing with it more torrential rain causing further 

flooding, landslides, crop damaged, and killing at least 16 

more people; 

Whereas the United States and the Philippines have a unique 

and enduring relationship that is based on shared history 

and commitment to democratic principles, as well as on 

strong economic ties; 

Whereas the historical and cultural links between the Philippines and the United States remain important; and 

Whereas the Filipino American community is the second largest Asian-American group in the United States with a 

population of approximately 3,100,000: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) mourns the terrible loss of life caused by 

3 Tropical Storm Ketsana and Typhoon Parma that 

4 occurred on September 26, 2009, and October 1, 

5 2009; 

6 (2) expresses its deepest condolences to the 

7 families of the many victims; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 800 IH 

1 (3) urges President Obama to continue to sup2 port the Philippines with emergency relief supplies, 

3 logistical, transportation assistance, and financial 

4 support; and 

5 (4) works closely with the Government of the 

6 Philippines to improve disaster mitigation techniques 

7 and compliance among all key sectors of their soci8 eties. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00693-CR

Michael E. Merritt, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 50107, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In January 2000, appellant Michael E. Merritt pleaded guilty to possessing more than

one gram of cocaine. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (West 2003). He also

admitted having two previous felony convictions. The court deferred adjudication and placed Merritt

on community supervision. In September 2004, the court adjudicated Merritt guilty after a hearing

on the State’s motion and sentenced him to twenty-five years’ imprisonment.

Merritt’s court-appointed attorneyfiled a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v.

State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.
2

1969). Merritt received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to examine the

appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

___________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Pemberton

Affirmed

Filed: June 16, 2005

Do Not Publish
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 9, 2010

s0830 

# Order

September 9, 2010

141045

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141045 COA: 295878 Wayne CC: 02-013472-FH JEREMIAH WILLIAM BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the April 2, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gregory HARRIS, Appellant.

Nos. WD 50123, WD 51269.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 8, 1996.

Rosemary E. Percival, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Harris appeals his convictions for one count of trafficking in the first degree and one count of unlawful use of a weapon. He also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm the convictions and the denial of post-conviction relief. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
#### D. W. Jackson, Respondent, v. The St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railroad Company, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals,

January 27, 1891.

Railroads: killing of stock. The duty of a railway company to fence, where its road passes through uninclosed lands, is imposed upon it for the benefit of the general public, and not for adjoining owners only.

*325
      *Appeal from the Mississippi Circuit Court.*— Hon. H. O. O’Bryan, Judge.

Affirmed.

*George H.*Benton, for appellant.

(1) The first cause of action stated in plaintiff’s petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute- a cause of action. It discloses that the justice of the peace of Tywappity township had no jurisdiction of the killing of the hogs alleged to have occurred in Mississippi township, because the essential jurisdictional allegation that Mississippi township adjoins Tywappity township is wholly lacking, and cannot be inferred from anything that is alleged. *Ellis v.*Railroad, 83 Mo. 372 ; *Manz v.*Railroad, 89 Mo. 278. (2) The court erred in refusing to declare the law as requested by the appellant. *Ferris*«. *Railroad.*30 Mo. App. 122.

*James A. Boone*and *H. J.*Cantwell, for respondent.

Rombauer, P. J.

The plaintiff recovered judgment for double damages, under section 2611 of the Revised Statutes of 1889, for killing his stock by the defendant’s cars, where its road ran through uninclosed timber lands. The only exception saved on the trial below relates to the refusal of the court to declare the law, upon defendant’s request, that the plaintiff could not recover, unless he was an adjoining proprietor of lands, and the stock strayed upon the road from such lands. There was no error in this. The case of *Ferris v.*Railroad, 30 Mo. App. 122, which is claimed, as giving countenance to this view, refers to inclosed fields only. The duty of the railway company to fence, where its roads passes through uninclosed lands, is imposed upon it for the benefit'of the general public, *326and not for adjoining owners only. *Rozzelle v. Railroad,*79 Mo. 349; *Kinion v. Railroad,*39 Mo. App. 382.

A point now made for the first time, and which derives some countenance from the recitals in the transcript, is that the plaintiff’s statement, on which the cause was tried, fails to show that the stock was killed either in the township where the suit was brought, or in an adjoining township. The plaintiff, claiming that the transcript, as filed, failed to correctly set out the statement filed, moved for a *certiorari,*and, to avoid delay, we ordered the clerk of the circuit to send up the original statement for our inspection. We have ascertained from an inspection of the statement that it does contain the allegation that Tywappity township, wherein the suit was brought, adjoins Mississippi township, wherein the stock came upon the track, and was killed. The omission of this statement in the transcript was apparently due to the fact the allegation is inserted in the margin, and was on that account *overlooked by*the clerk in copying it. The second assignment of error is, therefore, likewise untenable.

Judgment affirmed.

All concur.
EXHIBIT 99.2

|PG&E FUNDING LLC                            
|--------------------------------------------
|CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
|PURSANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350           
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|(1)                                         
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|(2)                                         
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|March 14, 2003                              
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|                                            
|
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Amado Moreno Cabrera, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-18-00394-PHX-JAT

ORDER OF DETENTION

Defendant appeared before this Court on a Petition for Revocation of Supervised

Release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The Court considered the

Petition and file in determining whether defendant should be released on conditions set by

the Court.

The Court finds that defendant has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he

does not pose a serious flight risk pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure.

The Court concludes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant is a serious

flight risk and that there is no condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably

assure his appearance at future proceedings.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further

proceedings.

DATED this 30th day of January, 2019
#### Kevin Lee JAMES, Respondent, v. Marian Agnes JAMES, Appellant.

No. WD 51842.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 7, 1997.

Noel T. Magee, Columbia, for appellant.

Vonnieta E. Trickey, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, C.J., P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SPINDEN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Marian Agnes James (Wife) appeals from the trial court’s decree dissolving her marriage to Kevin Lee James (Husband). Wife claims that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter its decree because it did not hear additional evidence in accordance with its prior decree.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).