alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 122 (Monday, June 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 32462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15946]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to 28 CFR 50.7

    Notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in United 
States of America v. Blue Grass Chemical Specialities, L.P. and Blue 
Grass Holding Corp., Civil Action No. NA 96-31-C D/H, was lodged on 
June 5, 1996 with the United States District Court for the Southern 
District of Indiana. The proposed consent decree resolves the United 
States' claims against Blue Grass Chemical Specialists, L.P. for 
violations of pretreatment standards enforceable under the Clean Water 
Act at its organic chemicals manufacturing facility located in New 
Albany, Indiana. In the proposed settlement Blue Grass Chemical 
Specialties, L.P. agrees to: continue in complete compliance with 
federal and local pretreatment standards and pay a civil penalty of 
$110,000.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of 
Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United States of 
America v. Blue Grass Chemical Specialties, L.P. and Blue Grass Holding 
Corp., DOJ Ref. #90-1-1-4214.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney, 204 South Main Street, South Bend, Indiana 
46601-2191; the Region 5 Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604; and at the Consent 
Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, 
(202) 624-0892. A copy of the proposed consent decree may be obtained 
in person or by mail from the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, 
NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005. In requesting a copy please refer 
to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $5.75 (25 
cents per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree 
Library.
Bruce S. Gelber,
Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 96-15946 Filed 6-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
```
#### Ronald Alexander LeBLANC, Petitioner, v. Sandra Lee LeBLANC, Respondent.

No. C-8390.

Supreme Court of Texas.

July 12, 1989.

John George, Fly, Moeller & Seel, Victoria, Tex., for petitioner.

Lisa Hartman, Kelly, Stephenson & Marr, Victoria, Tex., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of divorce. The court of appeals has reversed the property division and remanded the cause for a new division. 761 S.W.2d 450. Among other things, husband has argued the application of *Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines,*134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124 (1939), to the judgment of the trial court. *Craddock*sets forth the traditional elements of proof required to obtain a new trial following a default judgment. *Id.*133 S.W.2d at 126.

The court of appeals concluded that *Craddock*had no application to the present case because it was tried on the merits, rather than decided by default. 761 S.W.2d at 454. Citing Tex.R.Civ.P. 239, the court of appeals further explained that this was not a case of default because husband had filed an answer. *Id.*Although we agree that *Craddock*has no application here because the case was tried on the merits, we do not agree with the court of appeals’ explanation. *Craddock*has general application to all judgments of default, both those “entered on failure of a defendant to file an answer and those entered on failure to appear for trial.” *Ivey v. Carrell,*407 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Tex.1966). The present cause was decided on the merits not because husband had an answer on file, but because he was represented at trial by counsel. There was no default even though husband failed to appear personally for the trial.

The application for writ of error is denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD LEE HASSELBRING,

 Petitioner,

v. Case Number: 08-CV-14845

Honorable George Caram Steeh

DEBRA SCUTT,

Respondent,

_______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO EXPAND RECORD

On November 18, 2008, Petitioner Richard Lee Hasselbring, through counsel, filed an

application for writ of habeas corpus with this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. # 1.) 

On November 24, 2008, the Court ordered Respondent to file an answer to the petition by May

26, 2008. (Dkt. # 2.) Before the Court now is Petitioner’s “Motion to Expand Record.” 

(Dkt. # 3.) For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant Petitioner’s motion.

Rule 7 (a) of the rules governing § 2254 cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, indicates that if a

habeas petition is not summarily dismissed, the district court judge “may direct the record be

expanded by the parties by the inclusion of additional materials relevant to the determination of

the merits of the petition.” A federal district court judge may employ a variety of measures to

avoid the necessity of an evidentiary hearing in a habeas case, including the direction to expand

the record to include evidentiary materials that may resolve the factual dispute without the need

for an evidentiary hearing. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 81-82 (1977).
-2-

In the present case, Petitioner requests the Court to expand the record to include the

attached affidavit of Dr. Steven Miller. On the basis of the above, the Court will permit the

record to be expanded to include the attached affidavit. 

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion to expand the record is GRANTED, and the

affidavit of Dr. Steven Miller, attached to Petitioner’s motion, is deemed filed.

Dated: December 1, 2008

S/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

December 1, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Darryl Baker, #19613039,

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-10360

v. Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds

Bannum Place of Saginaw, Latoya Burnside,

Dorothy Jones, Clairnet McFadden, 

Vertrice Roby, Mr. Lyons, Mark A. Cuneen,

Jody Bradely, Henry Hobson and Ms. Frierson,

Defendant.

________________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter has come before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation. Being fully advised in the premises and having reviewed the record and the

pleadings, including the Report and Recommendation and any objections thereto, the Court hereby

ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is further

ordered that Plaintiff's motion for judgment [#33] is DENIED, and Defendant's motion to dismiss

[#39] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: November 17, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel

of record on November 17, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager
#### Marvin Larmar FORNISS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 55073.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 13, 1988.

Christopher E. McGraugh, Asst. Public Defender, Clayton, for movant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.

REINHARD, Judge.

Movant appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 27.26 motion. We affirm.

Movant pled guilty to five counts of armed criminal action, one count of first degree assault, one count of kidnapping, one count of felonious restraint and two counts of attempted robbery. He was sentenced to serve concurrent sentences, the longest of which was 25 years.

Movant filed a motion to vacate sentence under Rule 27.26. The motion court denied his motion without an evidentiary hearing; this appeal followed.

Our review is limited to determining whether the findings, conclusions, and judgment of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Rule 27.26(j); *Richardson v. State,*719 S.W.2d 912, 915 (Mo.App.1986). After a plea of guilty, the effectiveness of counsel is relevant only to the extent it affects the voluntariness of the plea. *Armour v. State,*741 S.W.2d 683, 688 (Mo.App.1987).

While movant’s sole point on appeal refers to no specific conduct of counsel affecting the voluntariness of his plea, we glean from the record that movant’s only potentially meritorious contention is that his plea was involuntary because it was based on counsel’s false “promise” that his sentence would only be 15 years. The trial court did a commendable job questioning movant exhaustively to determine whether his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. The guilty plea transcript reveals the following colloquy between the court and movant:

> *760Q. You understand the range of punishment goes up to six life sentences plus a couple of 30-year sentences and a seven-year sentence?

> A. Yes.

> 

> Q. Has anyone made any promises to you concerning your plea of guilty, such as, the amount of time you might have to serve or the possibility of probation?

> A. No.

Movant’s sole contention is therefore refuted unequivocally by the record. *See Thomas v. State,*736 S.W.2d 518, 519 (Mo.App.1987). The motion court did not clearly err in denying movant's motion without an evidentiary hearing.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

CRANDALL, P.J., and CRIST, J., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-20006-03-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

CORY HOLLAR,

Defendant.

__________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY AS TO THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF

COUNT ONE, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA AGREEMENT UNDER

ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on September 21, 2009, by United States Magistrate Judge

Charles E. Binder pursuant to the defendant’s consent. The magistrate judge issued his report on

September 22, 2009, recommending that this Court accept the defendant’s guilty plea. As of today’s

date, no party has filed any objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The

failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith

v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure

to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review

the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The Court, however, agrees with the findings

and conclusions of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 115] is ADOPTED.

1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB Doc # 142 Filed 11/04/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 415
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s guilty plea as to the lesser included offense of

count one is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 113] is taken UNDER

ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: November 4, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on November 4, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB Doc # 142 Filed 11/04/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 416
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

PICCARRETA DAVIS KEENAN FIDEL PC

2 East Congress Street, Suite 1000

Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 622-6900

Michael L. Piccarreta

State Bar No. 003962

Email: mlp@pd-law.com

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

6. Andrew Padilla,

 (Counts 1-51)

 

 Defendants.

NO. CR-18-00422-06-PHX-SPL (BSB)

DEFENDANT PADILLA’S NOTICE OF 

JOINDER IN DEFENDANTS’ 

OPPOSITIONS TO GOVERNMENT’S 

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL 

(DOC. 118)

Defendant Andrew Padilla, by and through his undersigned attorney, hereby

joins in Defendant Lacey’s Opposition to Government’s Motion to Disqualify Henze 

Cook Murphy PLLC, (Doc. 174), Henze Cook Murphy’s Response to the United States’ 

Motion to Disqualify Counsel, (Doc. 176), and Defendants Lacey and Larkin’s 

Opposition to United States’ Motion to Disqualify Counsel, (Doc. 180). Mr. Padilla 

adopts the positions set forth in these oppositions as if fully set forth herein.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 7th day of June, 2018.

PICCARRETA DAVIS KEENAN FIDEL PC

By: /s/ Michael L. Piccarreta

Michael L. Piccarreta

Attorney for Andrew Padilla

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 184 Filed 06/07/18 Page 1 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

2

On June 7, 2018, a PDF version

of this document was filed with the

Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF

System for filing and for Transmittal

of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the

following CM/ECF registrants:

Kevin Rapp, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Peter Kozinets, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov

Andrew Stone, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 184 Filed 06/07/18 Page 2 of 2
exv10w20






Exhibit 10.20




EXTERRAN PARTNERS, L.P.

LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

NOTICE OF THIRD AMENDMENT TO GRANT OF OPTIONS




     THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO GRANT OF OPTIONS (the “Amendment”) is delivered by Exterran GP LLC
(formerly UCO GP LLC), on behalf of Exterran General Partner, L.P. (formerly UCO General Partner,
LP) (the “Company”).



W I T N E S S E T H:




     WHEREAS, Exterran GP LLC, on behalf of Exterran General Partner, L.P., previously granted an
option to purchase units of the Company under the Exterran Partners, L.P. Long-Term Incentive Plan
(the “Plan”), pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Grant of Options Award
Agreement, as amended (the “Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Agreement to comply with the final regulations
issued under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code;



     NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of the close of business on December 31, 2008, the Agreement is
hereby amended as follows:



     1. The second to the last paragraph of Paragraph 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read
as follows:




“Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, the Options shall not be exercisable in any
event after December 31, 2009.”



     2. New Paragraph 13 (“Section 409A”) is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows:




“Section 409A. Nothing in this Agreement shall operate or be construed to
cause the Options to fail to comply with the requirements of Section 409A of the
Internal Revenue Code. The applicable provisions of Section 409A and the
regulations thereunder are hereby incorporated by reference and shall control over
any provision herein in conflict therewith. If the Grantee is a ‘specified
employee’ within the meaning of Section 409A as of the date his employment with the
Company terminates prior to January 1, 2009, and his Options vest due to his
termination, then any Options exercised by the Grantee during the six month period
commencing on his termination date shall not be paid until the second day
following the end of such six month period (or, if earlier, the date of Executive’s
death).”



1









 





     3. The Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and, as amended by this Amendment, is
hereby ratified and affirmed in all respects.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this Amendment on this 18th day of
December, 2008, but effective as of the close of business on December 31, 2008.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EXTERRAN GP LLC

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Stephen A. Snider 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 




      




     Grantees are advised to keep a copy of this Notice of Third Amendment with the Agreement for
future reference.




2
>>>" Robert A. Wiggins" <vggggNM> 11/29/07 7:31 AM >>>

Rich and Janice,

I'm afraid I received some bad news yesterday. You will be receiveing
a letter informing you that Micah is not eligible to live in the dorm.

I don't know at what level this got waylayed; | thought everything was
in place and we had the support we needed. | spoke at length
yesterday evening to our Vice President of Student Affairs and she was
adamant that this would not be possible.

I'm not sure what steps to take next since we are being stopped at a
pretty high level of university governance. I will attempt to get some
advice from some other high level university officials - today, if | can -
but I'm not sure I can win this. As you might detect from this email, I'm
very discouraged.

lll talk with you this afternoon at Micah's planning meeting.

Bob

cc: RUAW@aol.com
#### William D. CRUST, Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Appellant.

No. WD 49606.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 28, 1995.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Rodney P. Massman, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. *733Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.

„ Scott Fnedneh, Hamsonville, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and ULRICH and SMART, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Director of the Department of Revenue appeals the trial court’s reversal of her decision that William D. Crust’s license to operate a motor vehicle be suspended because of drunk driving. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
MIED (Rev. 06/08) Notice of Error

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Plaintiff(s), Case No. 

v. Judge

Defendant(s). /

NOTICE OF ERROR DIRECTED TO

Document number ______, filed on ________________ was reviewed and the following error was found:

Docket entry was made on the wrong case. Document must be refiled.

PDF image was not uploaded. Document must be refiled.

Document is a complaint combined with a motion for preliminary relief, or a response or reply to a

motion combined with a counter-motion. Document was stricken.

Document is a response or objection to a presentence report or a criminal witness list. Document

was stricken.

Document is discovery or a disclosure under 26(a) (1),(2). Document was stricken.

Other:

Disciplinary action will be imposed if errors continue to occur in this or other cases where counsel is listed as the

attorney of record.

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that the parties and/or counsel of record were served with a copy of this notice.

DAVID J. WEAVER, CLERK OF COURT

By: ______________________________________________

 Deputy Clerk

Date:

United States of America,

Peter Hendrickson,

08-20585

Gerald E. Rosen

MARK DALY

58 9/1/09

✔

s/Peggy S. Miller

September 2, 2009

Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 59 Filed 09/02/2009 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DANIEL DAVID SMITH, 

 Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-14893 

v. DISTRICT JUDGE GERALD E. ROSEN

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE DONALD A. SCHEER 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s separate Application For

Appointment of Counsel dated November 21, 2008 (Docket #2). The decision to appoint

counsel for an indigent litigant is within the discretion of the district court. LaBeau v.

Dakota, 815 F.Supp. 1074, 1076 (W.D. Mich. 1993) (citing Henry v. City of Detroit

Manpower Dept., 763 F.2d 757, 760 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1036 (1985)).

Appointment of counsel is not a constitutional right. Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382,

1384 (6th Cir. 1987). This discretion rests upon a consideration of all the circumstances

of the case, including the plaintiff's finances, his efforts to obtain counsel, and most

importantly, whether the plaintiff's case appears to be meritorious. Henry at 760. 

The Social Security Act permits practicing attorneys to collect a contingent fee for

representing disability claimants before the Social Security Administration from past due

benefits that result from successful claims. Consequently, disability claimants pay no fee

at all unless they win their case. 42 U.S.C. §§ 406(a)(2)(A) and 1383(d)(2)(A). In his

application for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he attempted and
failed to secure legal representation under this fee arrangement. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

Application for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. 

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Order but are

required to act within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) and E.D.Mich.LR 72.1(d)(1). Failure to file specific objections

constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. Filing of objections

that raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity, will not preserve all the

objections a party might have to this Order. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(1), a copy

of any objection is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge. 

Within ten (10) days of service of any objecting party's timely filed objections, the

opposing party may file a response. The response shall address specifically, and in the

same order raised, each issue contained within the objections.

SO ORDERED.

s/Donald A. Scheer

DONALD A. SCHEER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DATED: December 3, 2008

______________________________________________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on December 3, 2008 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper

with the Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered

electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to the following nonregistered ECF participants on December 3, 2008: Daniel David Smith.

s/Michael E. Lang 

Deputy Clerk to 

Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer

(313) 234-5217