alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Marco Antonio De La Garza, Jr., 

 Defendant. 

CR 18-353-TUC-RCC (BGM)

O R D E R 

CONTINUING PLEA DEADLINE 

AND TRIAL 

 

 This case is presently set for trial on May 1, 2018. The Defendant filed 

a motion to continue and, for the reasons set forth therein, additional time is required 

to adequately prepare for trial. The Government has no objection to a continuance. 

 The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh 

the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial because, for the reasons 

set forth in the motion, failure to grant the continuance is likely to result in a miscarriage 

of justice if the Defendant is required to go to trial on the present trial date. 

 IT IS ORDERED as follows: 

 1. The date by which the referred magistrate judge hears the change of plea must 

be no later than June 15, 2018 by 3:00 p.m. 

 2. All motions, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be in writing and shall 

be made sufficiently in advance of trial to comply with the time periods set forth in 

LRCiv. 7.2 and any court order and to avoid any delays in the trial. Pretrial motions may 

be heard before a magistrate judge and a Report and Recommendation will be provided to 

the district judge assigned to the case. 

Case 4:18-cr-00353-RCC-BGM Document 22 Filed 04/16/18 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

 3. This matter is RESET for trial on July 3, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. Counsel are to be 

present at 9:00 a.m. 

 4. Excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7) is found to commence on 

May 2, 2018 and end on July 3, 2018. Such time shall be in addition to other excludable 

time under the Speedy Trial Act and shall commence as of the day following the day that 

would otherwise be the last day for commencement of trial. 

 5. That any and all subpoenas previously issued shall remain in full force and 

effect through the new trial date. 

 6. Any motion or stipulation to continue the scheduled trial date and change 

of plea deadline shall be filed with the Clerk of Court no later than 5:00 p.m., 

Monday, June 18, 2018. Alternatively, by that same deadline, if after consultation 

between government and defense counsel it is determined that a motion to continue 

the scheduled trial date and change of plea deadline will not be filed, government 

counsel shall notify the Court by an email to the chambers email address that the 

case and counsel are ready to proceed to trial on the scheduled trial date. The 

notification shall also include the estimated number of trial days needed to complete 

the trial. 

 Dated this 16th day of April, 2018. 

Case 4:18-cr-00353-RCC-BGM Document 22 Filed 04/16/18 Page 2 of 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Michael Lacey,

Defendant.

No. CR-18-00422-001-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

Upon consideration of Defendant Michael Lacey’s Unopposed Motion to Amend 

His Conditions of Release (Doc. 1560) and finding good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion (Doc. 1560) and Defendant’s conditions 

of release are hereby amended to remove the location monitoring technology, condition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming all previously imposed conditions of 

release unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 

The Court finds there is no excludable delay.

Dated this 7th day of April, 2023.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1561 Filed 04/07/23 Page 1 of 1
```

                                   CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

The undersigned hereby certifies that she is the duly elected and acting Assistant Treasurer
of Southern California Edison Company, as servicer (the "Servicer") under the Transition
Property Servicing Agreement dated as of December 11, 1997 (the "Servicing Agreement")
between the Servicer and SCE Funding LLC (the "Note Issuer") and further that:

        1. A review of the activities of the Servicer and of its performance under the
           Servicing Agreement during the twelve months ended June 30, 2005 has been made
           under the supervision of the undersigned pursuant to Section 3.03 of the
           Servicing Agreement; and

        2. To the best of the undersigned's knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer
           has fulfilled all of its material obligations in all material respects under the
           Servicing Agreement throughout the twelve months ended June 30, 2005, except for
           those material defaults in the fulfillment of material obligations listed on
           Annex A hereto.

        Executed this 30th day of September, 2005.

                                    SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

                                    By:   /s/ Mary C. Simpson
                                    ----------------------------------
                                          Mary C. Simpson
                                          Assistant Treasurer

Page

                                           ANNEX A
                                              TO
                                  CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

                                  LIST OF SERVICER DEFAULTS

The following material defaults known to the undersigned occurred during the twelve months
ended June 30, 2005.

Nature of Default                                                Status
-----------------                                                ------

None
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7394

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAMON TAQUAN JACKSON, a/k/a DJ, a/k/a Daddy Frost,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:16-cr-00054-DCN-1; 2:21-cv-00788-

DCN)

Submitted: April 9, 2024 Decided: May 10, 2024

Before KING, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST, P.C., Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7394 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Damon Taquan Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7394 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
QUESTION: 

\~\'1C\+- boppeos 1G: b\e are uoob1e }:fl ceach ao 

Juror Number 

RESPONSE: 

1he v--efevs ~()1,( bac~ +o l?vf) es r& Clvif;1 I '6 

// 

United States District Judge 
RESPONSE: 

Juror Number 

'--le s . A"' d. .J V".e t e.- Qu 1:2 a. ck ±o -+vie J 1,{V J 
QUESTION: 

Cao \& ae-\-- a cteP:io;\:ioa £-or toY\oealn1eo!-: as i±- 1 

'Ce\o\es tD Cborr1e3 ss -to2 I 

Juror Number 

RESPONSE: 

Ta coo LeCl I me-M1s --l-he et-C-+ D+ 'j) tevet11+1 n9 

oJ ";? c.J os u re.. o r r e-:tetl .. .'1 n i n -£ r o m dis c ! o s I h ~. 
QUESTION: 

:in M .@ kt:a _. ,,n ~iin t~ --nil\;) 

.9 :!MI -prnrJ ~J,1f ' -~ -t 4lk,'\\ 1 

, . 3⁄4 Ct , 1w 

°ti~ }i~ 1, <3⁄4I)~ ll'/) o :\l~ ~I °'- -Du,~ 

b~ Jill 1ll&l} t, (l\lf\ J\lJ:1fJ duti.ri Cl) ~Q 

RESPONSE: 

*\5 NI:> 

Juror Number 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa 

United States District Judge 
QUESTION: 

~e -41 \(\ llie lffit)'1)Cn Dtl5 Cbuev:.s Garo frti+-b. Can 

£a i+h be cl P/2 Uro :tD /11} CD l) n .f-5 CH::: j s Good Pai 1-h 

Heel to a tp lar Chav5e: 

Juror Number 

RESPONSE: 

Th~ &iood '"=F~1⁄4 ~Vl huG tiWl C..cu-, b~ 
QUESTION: 

--:Cf: o. otff e:o dao-1- 'is -£-Do nd no.\: 9JD 119 l o Cbnrqe 

One.fer :27 \Anes \:':! o.nd 15, Con -\:he -Same 

dePero\O.n+ be Po m'CI u i I~ o~ c:mr:qe~ 2.- 5 1 '. I-P 

Toe1j \0e'<e n6\-: ~Dre\ ta be a rnerober oh llie 

~D~p,v:Q~: 

Juror Number 

RESPONSE: 

If. t<- dde..n daYJ+ , fev n d 11,0 +-- 0 0 ) bq , n 

United States District Judge 
QUESTION: 

OC-K f:N Cf_)l/ v: J - __2_ a c fi Cc u h -f s 1-a Y1 d So O ri r' +:s O CUI\._( I 

/;1;1f?;, ( -{ tc.y ---£Oc (, clet2er1 @P"I ·-/. rl a rfa 41/JcfR td k () 

1-o MA--erd ffi o t1 & M f' n:;{ 06 Cc:J lb-i.__J! .2 - Jkc9 0 Ccovv/ 

I' . ID . 

h(? wvrv/ Afo-1 501 (1-y- (OY/ffcJ-, '--(UYve1⁄4;ve hy 6{? 11<-J , 

l 

Al uJ r; v/ I JJ &o C£J J I (ttt u-+ p aJLJ 06 k~t1 ({!JY}Sp i-- m 

...5 { { { / uvh .S -l,1;07 ii- • VII\_ 

Co c0 s c2 -5 I j (J_ d -d!P v1 d (,v as a.. uv ./LC0-ULo(; +lJ co:50' _;W' (a'-'}, Sf I y-{): 0f - Cptj,;:}7) U JurorNurnbe,~ 

RESPONSE: 

If cc d ~{e-n dtLn+ d oe.s 110+ mee--f- eLVl ele me-n+ o? e.-ovn-+-

.1.; +h-e.)J (:.,CLh no+ ·be--4vnd uil+-y ot- Coun-f ,1, I+ ~ta~ +-1 nd 

Cl def en d lt n---1-- is -i,-wl-- €) u i of co u n-f-- j__J +ha+ d~vi da,vrl---

C.ltn no} s u+r s:Py ~kmen+ Lt O'Y) r u9r: 2, of- +i1ej ur~ 

I V1 s±Y u cb OYJ be_ C6l use , % ?t +- de.fen d CLvl·+ can n o-1- he he:- l d. 

re.spU'YLs·, bk £r ~e__ Ctc.h e5(- l'.l CCr'U1/VI') r i r (A_ +-ov. 

United States District Judge 
QUESTION: 

llie Jl>Y ba,ie ~.Drue \:D o \Jnaoiroous agr-eemoo.\- on .\:be troJor i Dt- .\:be coun±s. \.\-Dt.A)ever, 1~ 

C.Dn5ensu3 ate onabte h> reach a t))ft$0& Dn .\:be 

rettl(1irurt:j coon-ls. 

RESPONSE: 

Juror Number 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa 

United States District Judge
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 121 (Friday, June 21, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 31928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15852]



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


COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to Office of 
Management and Budget for Review

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collection.

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

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has submitted 
information collection 3038-0021, Regulations Governing Bankruptcies of 
Commodity Brokers, to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-511. The information collection 
pursuant to this rule is intended to protect, to the extent possible, 
the property of the public in the case of the bankruptcy of a commodity 
broker.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment on this information collection 
should contact Gary Waxman, Office of Management and Budget, Room 3228, 
NEOB, Washington, DC 20502, (202) 395-7340. Copies of the submission 
are available from Joe F. Mink, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 418-
5170.
    Title: Regulations Governing Bankruptcies of Commodity Brokers.
    Control Number: 3038-0021.
    Action: Extension.
    Respondents: Businesses (excluding small businesses).
    Estimated Annual Burden: 338.00 hours.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Estimated                   Est. avg. 
                                              Regulation (17 CFR)          No. of        Annual       hours per 
                                                                         respondents    responses     response  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondents:                                                                                                    
    Businesses........................  190.06(b)(1)..................             2             2           .25
                                        190.10(b).....................           250           500           .05
                                        190.06(d) and 190.04(e)(1)....           250         6,250           .05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 17, 1996.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-15852 Filed 6-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Terry Jerome WOODS, Appellant.

No. WD 51443.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 19, 1996.

Rose M. Wibbenmeyer, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, David R. Truman, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and BERREY and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Terry Jerome Woods appeals his conviction of possession of a controlled substance in violation of § 195.202, RSMo 1994. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error. Because a published opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no precedential value, we affirm by this summary order under Rule 30.25(b). In addition, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth our reasoning.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 80 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 80

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 22, 2009.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be and are hereby elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.-- Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, 
Chairman; Mr. Chandler, Mr. Butterfield, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Welch.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00179-CV

IN RE ALLEN F. CALTON RELATOR

----------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

TRIAL COURT NO. 153-270690-14

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

In his lawsuit against Steve Schiller, Relator Allen F. Calton, an inmate 

proceeding pro se, filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary 

restraining order. Calton has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this 

court to compel the trial court to rule on his motion.

On June 1, 2015, the trial court signed an “Order Granting Defendant 

Steve Schiller’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Practice & Remedies Code,” thereby dismissing Calton’s claims against Schiller.

A trial court is authorized to dismiss an inmate’s claim upon making certain 

findings regarding the inmate’s allegations. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 

Ann. § 14.003(a) (West 2002).2

In our disposition of Calton’s petition, we do not review the trial court’s 

dismissal. The trial court’s dismissal, however, renders Calton’s petition for writ 

of mandamus moot. See In re Lopez, No. 06-07-00011-CV, 2007 WL 426734, at 

*1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Feb. 9, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). 

Accordingly, we deny Calton’s petition for writ of mandamus as moot.

PER CURIAM 

PANEL: GARDNER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DELIVERED: June 12, 2015

 

2Specifically, the trial court may dismiss the action before or after service of 

process, if the trial court determines that (1) the allegation of poverty in the 

affidavit or unsworn declaration is false; (2) the claim is frivolous or malicious; or 

(3) the inmate filed an affidavit or unsworn declaration required by this chapter 

that the inmate knew was false. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(a).
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Bernard Chan, the
Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Treasurer of
ASIA DOCUMENT TRANSITION, INC. (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY
that:





1.  The Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and





2.  Information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the
undersigned has executed this statement this13th day
of May, 2009.





/s/ Bernard ChanBernard ChanChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
ASIA DOCUMENT TRANSITION, INC. and will be retained by ASIA DOCUMENT TRANSITION,
INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 of Utec, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.




Very truly yours,





/s/Fortunato VillamagnaFortunato VillamagnaChief Executive OfficerMay 15, 2010/s/ Howard BouchHoward BouchChief Financial OfficerDated: May 13, 2010





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Utec, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Form of Change of Control Agreement Amendment No. 3 effective December 19, 2008



 EXHIBIT 10.53 
 CORNING INCORPORATED 
 CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 
 Whereas Corning Incorporated
(the “Company”) and                      (the “Executive”) entered into that certain Change in Control Agreement dated
June 1, 2001 (the “Agreement”); and 
 Whereas the Company and the Executive amended such Agreement on February 1, 2004 (Amendment
No. 1); and 
 Whereas the Company and the Executive amended such Agreement on December 12, 2007 (Amendment No. 2); and 
 Whereas the Company and the Executive want to amend the Agreement to take into account federal tax law changes under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations issued thereunder. 
 Now Therefore, the Company and Executive hereby agree to the following amendments,
which shall be effective as of January 1, 2005: 
  

	1.	Section 3(c) of the Agreement is amended by deleting the words “Section 3(b)(i) or Section 3(b)(ii)” and replacing it with “this Agreement”.


  

	2.	Section 5(d) is amended by adding the following new sentence to the end thereof: 

 “Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Payments that may be eliminated or reduced under this Section 5(d) may not be Payments that are subject to Section 409A.” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on December 19, 2008. 
  

							
	CORNING INCORPORATED	 	
			
	  
	 		 	  

	By:	 	John P. MacMahon	 		 	Executive
		 	Senior Vice President,	 		 	
		 	Global Compensation and Benefits	 		 	

  

 180
#### James Hershel HOLLAND, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 120-92.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Feb. 3, 1993.

Discretionary Review Refused Feb. 3, 1993.

Richard Alley (on appeal only), George Trimber, Fort Worth, for appellant.

*915Tim Curry, Dist. Atty. and C. Chris Marshall and Tanya S. Dohoney, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of driving while intoxicated and sentenced to thirty days confinement plus a $2,000 fine. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. *Holland v. State,*820 S.W.2d 221 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1991).

In his petition for discretionary review Appellant argues that the Court of Appeals was incorrect in holding that evidence of an unadjudicated DWI offense was admissible during the punishment phase of trial. Since the Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming Appellant’s conviction, this Court has held that unadjudicated extraneous offenses are inadmissible at the punishment phase of trial. *Grunsfeld v. State,*843 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our opinion in *Grunsfeld.*Therefore, we will remand this case in light of that opinion.

Ground one of Appellant’s petition for discretionary review is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for reconsideration in light of *Grunsfeld.*Appellant’s remaining grounds are dismissed without prejudice.