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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CR 01-703-PHX-ROS

)

Charles Truray Jeffrey, ) DETENTION ORDER

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________)

On October 30, 2008, defendant Charles Truray Jeffrey appeared before this Court

on a petition for revocation of supervised release. The Court considered the information

provided to the Court, and the arguments of counsel in determining whether the defendant

should be released on conditions set by the Court.

The Court finds that the defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to

revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that

he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released pursuant

to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 U.S.C.

§3143.

Case 2:01-cr-00703-ROS Document 45 Filed 10/31/08 Page 1 of 2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further

proceedings. 

DATED this 30th day of October, 2008.

Case 2:01-cr-00703-ROS Document 45 Filed 10/31/08 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


Section 906 Certification





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of DISH DBS Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











Dated: February 25, 2011





Name:  /s/ Robert E. Olson





Title: Executive Vice President and


Chief Financial Officer








The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. James T. OTTO, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 69614.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 26, 1996.

Arthur L. Poger, Clayton, for Defen-dani/Appellant.

Robert P. McCulloch, Prosecuting Attorney, Michael A. Reilly, Asst. Pros. Atty., St. Louis County, Clayton, for Plaintiff/Respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after he was convicted by a jury of one count of driving while intoxicated, § 577.010, RSMo 1994. The court sentenced him as a prior offender to a county jail term of six months. The court then suspended execution of five months of the sentence and ordered “no early release” and “no work release.” The state concedes that the sentence must be remanded for “clarification ... by making the period of probation definite.” Therefore, we remand the sentence with instruction for the trial court to designate a definite period of probation.

We have examined defendant’s remaining points on appeal and conclude that no error occurred. An opinion on those issues would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. Rule 30.25(b).

Affirmed in part, remanded in part.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

In Re Gary Hann, Case No. 08-14516

Debtor-Appellant. Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds

 /

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 Debtor-Appellant’s appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: September 2, 2009

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

counsel of record on September 2, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14516-NGE-RSW Doc # 9 Filed 09/02/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 23
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ C ase No. 5D 20 23- 2748 LT Case No. 20 15- CF

- 010023 -A

_____________________________ R ICKY G LASCO , A ppellant,

v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , A ppellee.

_____________________________ 3.85 3 A ppeal from t he Circuit Court fo r Brevard County

. Kelly J

. McKibben , Judge

. Bri an N

. Onek, of Onek & Mawn, P.A., Melbourne , for Appellant. Ashle y Moody, Attorne y Gene ral, Tallahassee , an d Kristen L

. Davenport , Assistan t Attorney Genera l, Daytona Beach , for Appellee

. June 18, 20 24
P ER C URIAM
. A FFIRMED . S OUD , M AC I VER , and P RATT , JJ., concur .2 _____________________________ N ot final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Micah Fialka−Feldman,

Plaintiff(s),

v. Case No. 2:08−cv−14922−PJD−VMM

Hon. Patrick J Duggan

Oakland University Board of

Trustees, et al.,

Defendant(s).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that a copy of the Notice(s) of Appeal filed in this case and this Certificate

of Service was served upon:

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse

100 East Fifth Street, Fifth Floor

Cincinnati, OH 45202−3988

and all interested parties, by electronic means or first class U.S. mail, on January 20, 2010.

DAVID J. WEAVER, CLERK OF COURT

By: s/ T McGovern 

Deputy Clerk

Dated: January 20, 2010

Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees Doc. 5

Dockets.Justia.com
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 36077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17396]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Application for Incidental Take Permit for Fountain Darter, etc.; 
San Marcos National Fish Hatchery and Technology Center, TX

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Receipt of Application for Incidental Take Permit for 
Surveying the Species Listed Below from San Marcos National Fish 
Hatchery and Technology Center.

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

APPLICANT: William M. Seawell, San Marcos, Texas.

SUMMARY: William M. Seawell has applied to the Fish and Wildlife 
Service (Service) for an incidental take permit pursuant to Section 
10(A)1(a) of the Endangered Species Act, for the purpose of scientific 
research and enhancement of propogation and survival of the species as 
prescribed by Service recovery documents. The applicant has been 
assigned permit number PRT-814863. The requested permit, which is for a 
period of 2 years, would authorize incidental take of the following 
endangered species:

    1. Fountain darters (Etheostoma fonticola)
    2. Texas blind salamanders (Typhlomolge rathbuni)
    3. San Marcos Gambusia (Gambusia georgei)
    4. Texas wild rice (Zizania texana)

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review the application may obtain a copy 
by writing to the Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 
87103. The request must be received by the Assistant Regional Director 
within 30 days of the date of this publication. Please refer to permit 
number PRT-814863 when submitting comments.
    Documents and other information submitted with this application are 
available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act 
and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written 
request for a copy of such documents to the above office within 30 days 
of the date of publication of this notice.
Lynn B. Starnes,
Acting Regional Director, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 96-17396 Filed 7-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-55-P
Filed 9/9/20 P. v. Reyes CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FIDEL LUCAS REYES,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G058976

 (Super. Ct. No. 07CF1113)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kimberly 

Menninger, Judge. Affirmed.

Susan S. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

* * *
2

In 2009, a jury convicted defendant Fidel Lucas Ramirez of crimes 

involving sex offenses against more than one child. The trial court imposed an aggregate 

sentence of 30 years to life. On appeal, this court generally affirmed the judgment with 

minor corrections to the abstract of judgment. (See People v. Reyes (Jan. 27, 2011, 

G041773) [nonpub. opn.].)

In 2020, defendant filed a petition for resentencing claiming he was 

convicted of murder. (Pen. Code, § 1170.95.) The trial court summarily denied the 

petition because defendant was not convicted of murder.

Defendant filed an appeal. This court appointed counsel, who filed a brief 

setting forth the procedural facts. Counsel advised this court that no identifiable issues 

on appeal could be ascertained, but counsel raised one potential issue: whether the trial 

court had abused its discretion. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); 

People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant filed a supplemental brief 

on his own behalf. Defendant did not address the merits of his appeal, but simply argued 

that he was entitled to Anders/Wende review.

We have conducted an independent review of the record and we have found 

no arguable issues that require briefing or argument. Accordingly, the order denying 

defendant’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 is affirmed.

MOORE, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

ARONSON, J.

IKOLA, J.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T NA T HA NI E L C AL E B AV E R Y, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. C OMMI S S I ON E R OF I NT E RNA L RE VENU E, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 07- 72506 T a x C t . N o. 17315- 05 ME MOR AN DU M *

A ppe a l f r om aD e c i s i on of

the U ni t ed S t at es T ax C ou rt S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r22, 2010 ** B efo re: W A L L A C E , H A W K IN S , an d T H O M A S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T he t a x c ourtpr ope r l yuphe l d the t a x de t e rm i na t i on be c aus e the C om m i ss i on erpres ent ed “ som e s ub st ant i ve evi dence” thatN athani el C al eb A very (“ A very ”) re ce i ved u nreport ed i ncom e, and A veryfa i l ed t o sub m i tany e vi dence 

# FI LED OC T 05 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 72506 2 show i ng “ thatthe defi ci encyw as arbi traryor erroneou s. ” H ardy v. C om m ’r , 181 F . 3d 10 02 , 10 04 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). T h e t ax co u rtal so p ro p erl y u p h el d th e l at e-fi l i n g ad d i t i o n t o t ax b ecau se A ve ry di d notf

i l e at a x r e turn f

or2002 orpr ovi de a nye vi de nc e s ugge s t i ng r e a s o n ab le c au s e f

o rh is f a ilu r e to d o s o . See 26 U . S . C . § 6 65 1(a) (1). T h e t ax co u rtact ed w i th i n i t s d i scret i o n w h en i m p o sed a $ 5 , 0 0 0 p en al ty, af t erfi nd i ng thatA veryhad i nst i tut ed the proceedi ng s pri m ar i l y f or del ayand h ad a d v a n c e d f

r iv o lo u s a r g u m e n ts . See 26 U . S . C . § 6673( a ) ( pr ovi di ng f ors a nc t i ons up t o $ 25, 000 w he r e “ pr oc e e di ngs . . . ha ve be e n i ns t i tut e d orm a i nt a i ne d bythe t a xpa y e rpr i m a r i l yf

orde l a y ” orw he r e “ the t a xpa y e r ’ s pos i t i on i n s uc h pr oc e e di ng i s f ri vo l ou s or groun dl es s” ); G ri m es v. C om m ’r , 80 6 F . 2d 14 51 , 14 54 (9th C i r. 1 9 8 6 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) . A ve ry ’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe t a x c ourtj udge w a s bi a s e d i s nots upport e d by th e r e c o r d . Se e T

a y lo rv . R eg e n ts o

f U n iv . o f Ca l. , 99 3 F . 2d 71 0, 71 2 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 3 ) ( a d v e r s e ru lin g s a lo n e a r e in s u f f ic ie n t to d e m o n s tr a te ju d ic ia l b ia s ) . A v e ry ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n p e r s u a s iv e . A F F I R M E D .
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

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

I, Michael E. Healy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ShoreTel, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of ShoreTel, Inc.

Date: November 5, 2010



By:

/s/ Michael E. HealyName:

Michael E. HealyTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
by referenced into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made on or before or after the date of this Report), irrespective at any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3638 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3638

To reauthorize the Development Fund for Africa under chapter 10 of part 
                I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 13, 1996

 Mr. Bereuter (for himself, Mr. Houghton, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. 
Payne of New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
              to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reauthorize the Development Fund for Africa under chapter 10 of part 
                I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF DEVELOPMENT FUND FOR AFRICA.

    Section 497 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2294) 
is amended--
            (1) by inserting after the section heading the following:
    ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated such 
sums as may be necessary to carry out this chapter for fiscal year 1997 
and each subsequent fiscal year.''; and
            (2) by striking ``Funds appropriated'' and inserting the 
        following:
    ``(b) Availability.--Funds appropriated''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08-20585

v. Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

PETER HENDRICKSON,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER APPOINTING BACKUP COUNSEL

At a session of said Court, held in

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan

on April 30, 2012 

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

Chief Judge, United States District Court

By order dated April 5, 2012, the Court alerted the parties to an issue that they

should be prepared to address at Defendant’s forthcoming resentencing hearing. In

response to this order, Defendant’s counsel, Mark E. Cedrone, has written a letter to the

Court indicating that he has personal knowledge and information bearing on the issue

identified in the April 5 order, and suggesting that, in light of this information, he could

potentially be called as a witness at Defendant’s resentencing hearing. In order to ensure

that Defendant remains properly and appropriately represented by counsel at the

resentencing hearing, even in the event that developments at this hearing preclude Mr.

Cedrone from continuing to serve as Defendant’s counsel throughout the full course of

2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Doc # 130 Filed 04/30/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 2202
1

For the reasons indicated in the April 5 order, it would not be appropriate for

Defendant’s other remaining counsel of record, Jack R. Hendrickson, Jr., to represent Defendant

at the resentencing hearing. Nonetheless, the Court directs Jack Hendrickson to attend this

hearing, so that he can address the issue raised in the April 5 order.

2

this proceeding,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that backup counsel shall be

appointed, at government expense, to be available to serve as counsel for Defendant at his

forthcoming resentencing hearing in the event that Defendant’s current counsel of record,

Mr. Cedrone, is precluded from representing Defendant due to developments at the

resentencing hearing.1

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: April 30, 2012

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on April 30, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Ruth A. Gunther 

Case Manager

2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Doc # 130 Filed 04/30/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 2203
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAR 19, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 13 39 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 02 6- CR-C DL-4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CEDRIC DEON W ILLIAMS, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S tate s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (March 19 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d HILL, Ci rcu itJu dg es PER CURI AM: W il li am J. Ma so n, ap po in te d c ou ns el forCedric W il li am s i n thi s d ire ct cri m in al ap pe al , has m ov edto withdraw fro m furth er re pr es en ta ti onof t he ap pe ll an t an d fi le d abri ef p ur su an t t o And er s v. C al if orni a , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct .13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2d49 3 (1 96 7) . Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of the en ti re re co rdrev eal s

th atco un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re rec or d re ve al s n o arg uabl e is su es of m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andW il li am s’s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce ar e AFFIRMED .

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RANDALL S. CAIN,

Plaintiff, No. 08-CV-14699-DT

vs. Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

PATRICIA CARUSO, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANT TURSAK’S

MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

At a session of said Court, held in

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan

on August 11, 1009 

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

 Chief Judge, United States District Court

This matter having come before the Court on the July 23, 2009 Report and

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Virginia M. Morgan recommending that the

Court grant Defendant Margaret Tursak’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismiss

Defendant Tursak from this action; and Plaintiff having timely filed objections to the

Report and Recommendation; and the Court having reviewed the R&R, Plaintiff’s

Objections and the Court’s entire file of this matter, and having determined that, as

recommended by the Magistrate Judge, Defendant Tursak’s motion should be granted,

NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s July 23, 2009 Report and

2:08-cv-14699-GER-VMM Doc # 34 Filed 08/11/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 246
Recommendation [Dkt. # 31] is hereby adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Tursak’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [Dkt. # 9] is GRANTED. Accordingly,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Tursak are

hereby, DISMISSED, with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: August 11, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on August 11, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Ruth Brissaud 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14699-GER-VMM Doc # 34 Filed 08/11/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 247