alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JAY ALI SABREE, a.k.a. Jay A. Sabree,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-10005

D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00601-SRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 15, 2016** 

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Jay Ali Sabree appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his

guilty-plea conviction and 48-month sentence for assault by strangling or

suffocating a spouse or intimate partner within Indian country, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(8), 1152. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

FILED

MAR 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Sabree’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along

with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Sabree the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed. 

Sabree waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988. 

At sentencing, the district court announced a special condition of supervised

release that Sabree not contact the victim, Jodah Syretta Seymour, and that the

probation officer verify compliance. This special condition of supervised release

does not appear in the written judgment. We remand to the district court to add to

the written judgment this special supervised release condition. See United States v.

Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (remanding for the district court

to make the written judgment consistent with the unambiguous oral

pronouncement of sentence). 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

2 15-10005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL BEEBE,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08-14995

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk

THOMAS BIRKETT, TIM BEAVERS,

WILLIE O. SMITH, GERRY WYMA,

and DAVE BURNETT,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Presently before the Court is the report issued on December 7, 2010 by Magistrate Judge

Michale J. Hluchaniuk pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Judge Hluchaniuk recommended dismissing

with prejudice the plaintiff’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute and

denying as moot the defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. Judge Hluchaniuk noted

that the plaintiff had failed to respond to two separate court orders, each of which contained a

warning that failure to timely respond could result in the dismissal of his complaint. 

The magistrate judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may object to and

seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report. As of the date of

this order, no objections have been filed. A party’s 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 motion. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,

149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.

2:08-cv-14995-DML-MJH Doc # 48 Filed 01/13/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 462
-2-

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [dkt

# 47] is ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s complaint [dkt. #1] is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.

It is further ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment [dkt. #41] is

DENIED as moot.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: January 13, 2011

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 January 13, 2011.

s/Deborah R. Tofil 

DEBORAH R. TOFIL

2:08-cv-14995-DML-MJH Doc # 48 Filed 01/13/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 463
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS AMENDED, AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Consorteum Holdings, Inc. (hereinafter the "Company")
hereby certifies to such officer's knowledge that the Company's Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the "Report"), as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, 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 the Quarterly Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be part of the Report or "filed" for any
purpose whatsoever.


Date: May 24, 2010                             /s/ Peter Simpson
-----------------------                       ---------------------------------
                                              Name: Peter Simpson
                                              Title: Chief Financial Officer
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – PHOENIX 

U.S. District Judge: Steven P. Logan Date: January 25, 2019 

USA v. Lacey, et al Case Number: CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL

Assistant U.S. Attorneys: Kevin Rapp, Andrew Stone, Reginald Jones, John Kucera and Margaret 

Perlmeter

Defendant-1: Michael Lacey 

Attorneys for Defendant: Paul Cambria and Robert Corn-Revere, retained

Defendant: ☒ Present ☐ Not Present ☒ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons ☐ Writ 

Defendant-2: James Larkin 

Attorneys for Defendant: Thomas Bienert, Jr. and Robert Corn-Revere, retained

Defendant: ☒ Present ☐ Not Present ☒ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons ☐ Writ 

Defendant-3: Scott Spear 

Attorney for Defendant: Bruce Feder, retained

Defendant: ☒ Present ☐ Not Present ☒ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons ☐ Writ 

Defendant-4: John Brunst 

Attorneys for Defendant: Michael Kimerer and Gopi Panchapakesan, retained

Defendant: ☒ Present ☐ Not Present ☒ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons ☐ Writ 

Defendant-6: Andrew Padilla 

Attorney for Defendant: Michael Piccarreta, retained

Defendant: ☐ Present ☒ Not Present ☒ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons ☐ Writ 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 448 Filed 01/25/19 Page 1 of 2
USA v. Lacey et al Date: January 25, 2019 

Case Number: CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL Page 2 of 2

Page 2 of 2 

Defendant-7: Joye Vaught 

Attorney for Defendant: Stephen Weiss, retained

Defendant: ☐ Present ☒ Not Present ☒ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons ☐ Writ 

STATUS HEARING: 

Argument is presented regarding the Defendants’ Joint Status Report, (Doc. 443), the United States’ 

Memorandum (Doc. 444) and the United States’ Response to Defendants’ Joint Status Report (Doc. 

446). 

Recess taken. 

Further argument is presented. The Court treats the Defendants’ Joint Status Report (Doc. 443) as a 

motion/request to stay the defendants’ obligations. For the reasons stated on the record, the defendants’ 

motion is denied. Counsel for the government and for the defense are directed to continue to meet the 

deadlines set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. 131). 

Court Reporter Elva Cruz-Lauer 

Deputy Clerk Lisa Richter

Start: 9:35 AM 

Stop: 11:29 AM 

 Total court time: 1 hour, 34 minutes 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 448 Filed 01/25/19 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 

Jim B. Schmedding, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Hartford Life and Accident Insurance 

Company, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00915-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

IT IS ORDERED granting the Stipulation of Dismissal (Doc. 22). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims in the above-captioned case are 

dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

 Dated this 20th day of March, 2019. 

Case 2:18-cv-00915-DWL Document 23 Filed 03/21/19 Page 1 of 1
#### Bradley Eugene HENSLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 741-91.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

April 7, 1993.

Gary C. Bowers, Humble, for appellant.

D.C. Jim Dozier, County Atty. and Robert Bartlett, Asst. County Atty., Conroe, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

McCORMICK, Presiding Judge.

Appellant, Bradley Eugene Hensley, was charged with the offenses of driving while intoxicated and failing to maintain a single marked lane. Article 6701/ -1, and Article 6701d, Section 60(a), V.A.C.S. On November 28, 1989, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of failure to maintain a single marked lane and paid a fine. On November 9, 1990, appellant entered a special plea of double jeopardy to the D.W.I. charge. The trial court granted the special plea and the charge for the offense of driving while intoxicated was dismissed with prejudice.

Upon appeal by the State, the Beaumont Court of Appeals reversed, and held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the State from prosecuting appellant for the charge of driving while intoxicated because the State need not prove the failure to drive the vehicle within a single marked lane in order to prove appellant was driving while intoxicated. *State v. Hensley,*810 S.W.2d 20 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1991, pet. granted). Since the State could prosecute the charge of driving while intoxicated by establishing appellant’s blood alcohol level, the Court of Appeals determined that none of the elements of the D.W.I. offense as alleged in the information would depend on proof of any of the elements of the previously prosecuted offense. We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Double Jeopardy Clause1 bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an of*868fense charged in that prosecution, the State will submit evidence of conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted.

When the Court of Appeals addressed appellant’s contentions, it did not have the benefit of this Court’s recent opinions in *State v. Houth,*845 S.W.2d 858 (Tex.Cr. App., 1992), or *Parrish v. State,*851 S.W.2d 864 (Tex.Cr.App., 1993). We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this cause for consideration in light of *Houth*and *Parrish,*both supra.

1

. Appellant sets forth only a United States constitutional claim, invoking the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment states in pertinent part: "... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb_”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ROBERT LEVANDER,

Plaintiff, Case Number 08-14241

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

I.C. SYSTEM, INC. and JOHN DOE,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the opinion and order entered on this date,

It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the plaintiff shall recover from the defendant I.C.

System, Inc., the sum of $1001, plus attorney’s fees in the amount of $11,250, and costs in the

amount of $2,248.45, for a total sum of $14,499.45.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: April 25, 2011

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 April 25, 2011.

s/Deborah R. Tofil 

DEBORAH R. TOFIL

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 74, PageID.1077 Filed 04/25/11 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

AYYUB ANDERSON, 

Plaintiff,

Civil No.08-15292

Hon. John Feikens 

v.

JAMES B. PEAKE,

Defendant. 

________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, filed on

6/4/2009, and noted that no objections were filed by either party;

IT IS ORDERED that the Report is ADOPTED and entered as the findings and

conclusions of this court. 

s/John Feikens 

John Feikens

United States District Judge

Dated: June 30, 2009

2:08-cv-15292-JF-MKM Doc # 14 Filed 06/30/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 77
2

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

by electronic means or U.S. Mail on June 30,

2009.

s/Carol Cohron 

Deputy Clerk

2:08-cv-15292-JF-MKM Doc # 14 Filed 06/30/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 78
EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Jack P. Healey, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Industrial Distribution Group, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: March 11, 2005 /s/ Jack P. Healey   Jack P. Healey   Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Travelport Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended
September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Jeff Clarke, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael E. Rescoe,
as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to the best of his knowledge:



|/s/JEFF CLARKEJeff Clarke Chief Executive OfficerJanuary 25, 2008             |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/MICHAEL E. RESCOEMichael E. Rescoe Chief Financial OfficerJanuary 25, 2008 |  | 

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1127 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1127

   To require that, in the questionnaires used in the taking of any 
 decennial census of population or American Community Survey, standard 
    functional ability questions be included to provide a reliable 
                 indicator of need for long-term care.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 21, 2009

 Mr. Martinez introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require that, in the questionnaires used in the taking of any 
 decennial census of population or American Community Survey, standard 
    functional ability questions be included to provide a reliable 
                 indicator of need for long-term care.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Disability Data Modernization Act''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF STANDARD FUNCTIONAL ABILITY QUESTIONS IN CENSUS 
              QUESTIONNAIRES.

    In conducting the 2010 decennial census and the 2010 American 
Community Survey and every decennial census and American Community 
Survey thereafter, the Secretary of Commerce shall include, in any 
questionnaire distributed or otherwise used, the Katz basic activities 
of daily living scale and the Lawton-Brody instrumental activities of 
daily living scale.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JASON NORTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JACQUELINE NADEAU,

JERI ANN SHERRY,

MARK A. JOHNSON,

PATRICIA L. CARUSO,

 Defendants.

 /

Case Number: 08-15127

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,

(Doc. 21), and no objections having been filed thereto,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 15), is GRANTED.

 s/Marianne O. Battani 

 MARIANNE O. BATTANI

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: November 20, 2009

2:08-cv-15127-MOB-MKM Doc # 22 Filed 11/20/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 125
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon Plaintiff and counsel of record on this date

by ordinary mail and/or electronic filing.

s/Bernadette M. Thebolt

Deputy Clerk

2:08-cv-15127-MOB-MKM Doc # 22 Filed 11/20/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 126
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT SILER,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-CV-15077-DT

vs.

 DISTRICT JUDGE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

W. BALDWIN, et al., MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendants.

__________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CORRECT

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct Error in Filing to the

Clerk. (Docket no. 50). Plaintiff states that he certified that he would mail copies of his Motion to

Dismiss to Defendants, but the prison has refused to make the necessary copies for him. (Id.).

Plaintiff asks that the Court correct his filing and serve the Defendants with copies of his motion.

(Docket no. 48). Plaintiff’s motion is entered on the docket sheet thereby giving notice to the

Defendants which are all represented by counsel.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct (docket no. 50) is

GRANTED. No further action need be taken by the Clerk. 

2:08-cv-15077-PJD-MKM Doc # 53 Filed 08/19/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 386
-2-

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of ten days from the date of this

Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible under 28

U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

Dated:__8/19/09____________________ s/Mona K. Majzoub________________

MONA K. MAJZOUB

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2:08-cv-15077-PJD-MKM Doc # 53 Filed 08/19/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 387
EXHIBIT 2A

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 498-2 Filed 03/12/19 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 498-2 Filed 03/12/19 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 498-2 Filed 03/12/19 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 498-2 Filed 03/12/19 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 498-2 Filed 03/12/19 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 498-2 Filed 03/12/19 Page 6 of 6
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Sally Holdings LLC and Sally Capital Inc. (the “Companies”)on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2008 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Mark J. Flaherty, Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Companies.

 

 
|   | By:                                                  |    /s/ Mark J. Flaherty |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Mark J. Flaherty                                     |
|   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of |
|   | Sally Holdings LLC and Sally Capital Inc.            |

 

 

February 5,2009

 

----