alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibits-Order_to_Destroy.docx

Approved 12/17/15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Case No. 8:23CR126

)

Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO DESTROY

) 

vs. )

) 

)

GREGORY LOFTIS, )

)

Defendant. )

Counsel for the defendant notified the court on October 8, 2024 that they wish 

the following exhibits held by the court in this matter to be destroyed. 

 Defendant’s Exhibit 101 Motion Hearing 12/21/2023

Pursuant NECivR 79.1(f) or NECrimR 55.1(g), if counsel fails to show cause why 

the exhibits should not be destroyed, the clerk’s office is directed to destroy the abovelisted exhibits 14 days from the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 8, 2024

BY THE COURT

s/ Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.

Chief, U.S.District Judge

8:23-cr-00126-RFR-MDN Doc # 92 Filed: 10/08/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 148
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION
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 Report of Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget
Sound Energy, Inc. (the “Companies”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, Stephen P. Reynolds,
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Companies,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
            The
      Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and




(2)
            The
      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Companies.











Date:  August
      4, 2008/s/Stephen P. ReynoldsStephen
      P. ReynoldsChairman,
      President and
              Chief
      Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gregory A. Gaylor

v. Civil No. 05-cv-339-PB

United States of America,

President, et al

ORDER

Re: Document No. 46, Status Report

Ruling: On May 12, 2006, a justice of the New Hampshire

Superior Court entered an order awarding the petitioner all of the

relief to which he could possibly be entitled under the United

States - Switzerland Extradition Treaty. Accordingly, I propose to

dismiss the petition unless, on or before June 15, 2006, the

petitioner shows cause as to why it should not be dismissed.

/s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

U.S. District Judge

Date: May 22, 2006

cc: Gregory A. Gaylor, pro se

Peter E. Papps, Esq.

Simon R. Brown, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00339-PB Document 47 Filed 05/22/06 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

 Plaintiff, ) 8:00cr52

)

vs. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

)

LORENZO AVENDANO-RAMIREZ, ) 

)

 Defendant. )

This matter is before the court on filing no. 90, the Motion for Leave to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis filed by the defendant, Lorenzo Avendano-Ramirez, in connection with

his Notice of Appeal (filing no. 89). The defendant appeals the Memorandum and Order

(filing no. 85) and Judgment (filing no. 86) in which I denied his Motion Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. Upon

review of the record, including the petitioner’s certified trust account information (filing no.

91), filing no. 90 is granted. I have previously denied a Certificate of Appealability (filing

no. 88).

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:

1. That filing no. 90 is granted, and the defendant may proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal; and

2. That the Clerk of Court shall process this appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court

of Appeals.

DATED this 20th day of June, 2005.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon 

Joseph F. Bataillon

Chief District Judge

8:00-cr-00052-JFB Doc # 92 Filed: 06/20/05 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 89
Exhibit 32.1

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report of Publix Super Markets, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 27, 2008 (the Report) for the purpose
of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

I, William E. Crenshaw, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that on the date hereof:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ William E. Crenshaw
|William E. Crenshaw    
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 6, 2008
#### Moss *v.*City of Cleveland.

(No. 24286

Decided November 29, 1933.)

*Messrs. Mass & Marks,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. W. George •Kerr*and *Mr. Ezra Z. Shapiro,*directors of la-wi, and *Mr. Frank M. Surtz,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.]

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, i C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### International Trade Administration

# AGENCY:

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

# ACTION:

Notice of a meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Manufacturing Council will hold a meeting to deliberate for approval a draft letter of recommendation on Sustainable Manufacturing metrics.

# DATES:

September 23, 2008.

*Location:*                         Rochester, NY.                    

*Additional Information:*                         A supplemental notice will be issued in the near future with the exact address and time of the meeting. The date and address will also be posted on the Council's Web site at                         *http://www.manufacturing.gov/​council*                         as soon as they are available.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        The Manufacturing Council Executive Secretariat, Room 4043, Washington, DC 20230 (Phone: 202-482-1369), or visit the Council's Web site at                         *http://www.manufacturing.gov/​council*.                    

Dated: September 5, 2008.

Kate Sigler,

Executive Secretary, The Manufacturing Council.

[FR Doc. E8-21073 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1138 

KA 13-00536 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHARLES W. FRYSINGER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JAMES A. BAKER, ITHACA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

BROOKS T. BAKER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH (JAMES P. MILLER OF COUNSEL),

FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Peter C.

Bradstreet, J.), rendered October 19, 2012. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of unlawfully dealing with a child

in the first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law, the plea and the waiver of indictment

are vacated, and the matter is remitted to Steuben County Court for

further proceedings. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of unlawfully dealing with a child in the

first degree (Penal Law § 260.20 [2]). We note at the outset that

defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. Despite the

existence of a written appeal waiver form signed by defendant and his

attorney, no questions were asked of defendant about the appeal waiver

and his understanding thereof. In addition, the appeal waiver was not

mentioned until after defendant pleaded guilty. Thus, the record is

“insufficient to establish that [County Court] ‘engage[d] the

defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the

right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice’ ” (People v Brown,

296 AD2d 860, 860, lv denied 98 NY2d 767; see People v Hamilton, 49

AD3d 1163, 1164). 

We agree with defendant that the court erred in denying his

motion to vacate his guilty plea, which, inter alia, challenged the

factual sufficiency of his plea allocution (see People v Lopez, 71

NY2d 662, 665). Defendant was expressly charged with the act of

providing alcoholic beverages to persons under 21 years of age, but

during the brief factual colloquy at the plea proceeding he never

admitted that he provided alcohol. Here, defendant “preserve[d his]

challenge to the factual sufficiency of [the] plea allocution . . .

[by making] a motion to withdraw the plea under CPL 220.60 (3)” (id.),
-2- 1138 

KA 13-00536 

and we conclude that the court erred in denying that motion. 

Entered: November 15, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1112

To make Federal law apply to antique firearms in the same way it applies

to other firearms.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 20, 2001

Mr. HOEFFEL (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr.

FATTAH, Mr. MARKEY, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. FRANK, Mr. BECERRA,

Mr. BORSKI, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. BERMAN,

Mr. NADLER, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. ENGEL, Ms. MILLENDERMCDONALD, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, and Mr. WEXLER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To make Federal law apply to antique firearms in the same

way it applies to other firearms.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Antique Firearm Safe5 ty Act’’.
2

•HR 1112 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EXEMPTIONS FOR ANTIQUE FIRE2 ARMS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 921(a)(3) of title 18,

4 United States Code, is amended by striking the last sen5 tence.

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section

7 922(v)(3)(B) of such title is amended—

8 (1) by adding ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (i);

9 (2) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (ii);

10 and

11 (3) by striking clause (iii).

12 (c) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 90 days after the

13 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the

14 Treasury shall prescribe such regulations as may be nec15 essary to administer chapter 44 of title 18, United States

16 Code, as in effect pursuant to the amendments made by

17 this Act.

Æ
Exhibit 32.b  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Blink Logic Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:  The Report on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 (the Form 10-QSB) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB.  Dated: November 16, 2007/s/Larry Bruce
Larry Bruce
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer   The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-QSB pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court No. DA 20-0399

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

WILLARD DEAN McCAULOU,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is 

given an extension of time until November 10th, 2021 to prepare, file and serve the 

Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Jim Rice

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 12 2021

10/12/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0399
(logo)Rialto

CAPITAL

 

 

**2018 Annual Statement of ServicerCompliance (Item 1123)**

 

 

Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") datedas of November 1, 2018 by and among Credit Suisse Commercial Mortgage SecuritiesCorp., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as MasterServicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisorand as Asset Representations Reviewer relating to CSAIL 2018-C14 CommercialMortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2018-C14 **(CSAIL2018-C14)**

 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asspecial servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.       All servicing activities andperformance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreementare performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.       A review of the servicingactivities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of November29, 2018 to December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordance with thePooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

3.       To the best of my knowledge, basedon such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations underthe terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects forthe Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any suchobligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and statusthereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certifiedby: /s/ Adam Singer

AdamSinger, Managing Director 

 

Date:March 1, 2019
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

290 KA 14-01913 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERICA P. RECORD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA (CARA A. WALDMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (JEFFREY R. FRIESEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, A.J.), rendered February 7, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and petit larceny (§ 155.25). The record establishes that County Court advised defendant of the maximum sentence that could be imposed upon a violation of the conditions of the guilty plea, and thus defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal encompasses her contention that the enhanced sentence is unduly harsh and severe ( see People v VanDeViver , 56 AD3d 1118, 1119, lv denied 11 NY3d 931, reconsideration denied 12 NY3d 788).

Entered: March 24, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7126 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7126

  To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require Members of 
    Congress to file the reports on transactions in stocks, bonds, 
 commodities futures, and other forms of securities which are required 
    under such Act not later than 7 days after the transactions are 
                   completed, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2022

 Mr. Grothman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require Members of 
    Congress to file the reports on transactions in stocks, bonds, 
 commodities futures, and other forms of securities which are required 
    under such Act not later than 7 days after the transactions are 
                   completed, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Member Financial Transparency Act''.

SEC. 2. 7-DAY DEADLINE FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO FILE REPORTS ON 
              TRANSACTIONS IN SECURITIES.

    (a) Modification of Deadline for Members To File Reports.--Section 
103(l) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 103(l)) 
is amended by striking ``in no case later than 45 days after such 
transaction'' and inserting ``in no case later than 45 days after such 
transaction (or, in the case of a Member of Congress, in no case later 
than 7 days after such transaction)''.
    (b) Modification of Deadline for Clerk of the House and Secretary 
of the Senate To Make Reports Public.--Section 105(b)(1) of such Act (5 
U.S.C. App. 105(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``within thirty days'' 
and inserting ``within 30 days (or, in the case of a report of a 
transaction required to be reported under section 102(a)(5)(B) which is 
filed by a Member of Congress, within 10 days)''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to transactions occurring on or after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1245

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities

Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the

design, planning, and construction of a project to reclaim and reuse

wastewater within and outside of the service area of the Castaic Lake

Water Agency, California.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 27, 2001

Mr. MCKEON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of

the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and

construction of a project to reclaim and reuse wastewater

within and outside of the service area of the Castaic

Lake Water Agency, California.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CASTAIC LAKE WATER AGENCY RECLAIMED

4 WATER PROJECT.

5 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Reclamation Wastewater

6 and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (Public Law
2

•HR 1245 IH

1 102–575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended

2 by adding at the end the following:

3 ‘‘SEC. 1635. CASTAIC LAKE WATER AGENCY RECLAIMED

4 WATER PROJECT.

5 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera6 tion with the Castaic Lake Water Agency, California, is

7 authorized to participate in the design, planning, and con8 struction of a project to reclaim and reuse wastewater

9 within and outside of the service area of the Castaic Lake

10 Water Agency.

11 ‘‘(b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost

12 of the project authorized by this section shall not exceed

13 25 percent of the total cost of the project.

14 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not provide

15 funds for the operation and maintenance of the project

16 authorized by this section.’’.

17 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

18 in section 2 of such Act is amended by adding after the

19 item relating to section 1634 the following:

‘‘Sec. 1635. Castaic Lake Water Agency reclaimed water project.’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Samuel J. Bourne

v. Civil No. 05-cv-365-JD

Town of Madison, et al.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

Samuel J. Bourne has filed a motion seeking partial

reconsideration of the court’s order issued on June 29, 2007. 

The court previously granted the parties leave to move for

reconsideration to the extent that an order issued in this court

was inconsistent with the disposition of the related and pending

state court action. Such motions were to be filed within thirty

days after a final disposition of the related state court action. 

In his memorandum in support of his motion, Bourne states

that he is incorporating by reference previously filed memoranda. 

The court will not consider previously filed memoranda in

deciding the current motion. Instead, all arguments in support

of reconsideration must be presented in the current motion and

supporting memorandum. 

Conclusion

To the extent Bourne intended to repeat prior arguments, he

is required to state them in his current motion and memorandum. 

Case 1:05-cv-00365-JD Document 125 Filed 09/08/09 Page 1 of 2
2

Bourne is granted an opportunity to refile his motion for

reconsideration and supporting memorandum and exhibits, to state

his arguments in their entirety, on or before September 23, 2009.

The time for the defendants to respond to Bourne’s motion will be

calculated from September 23, 2009.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

September 8, 2009

cc: Brian J.S. Cullen, Esquire

Rachel A. Hampe, Esquire

Richard D. Sager, Esquire

Gerald F. Williamson, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00365-JD Document 125 Filed 09/08/09 Page 2 of 2