alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gary Martin BANTA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-50382. D.C. No. CR-01-00691-NM-1.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 24, 2003.

Before LEAVY, HAWKINS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Gary Martin Banta appeals the revocation of his supervised release, as well as the four-month sentence and subsequent 55-month term of supervised release imposed upon the revocation.

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Banta has filed a brief stating that there are no meritorious issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Banta has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no further issues for review. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,011,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  371,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (329,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    769,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          31,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (31,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,993,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                     12,457,000
<COMMON>                                       532,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (27,971,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,993,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                60,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             492,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (542,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (542,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.13)
<FN>
<F1> CURRENT ASSETS AND CURRENT LIABILITIES VALUES
     ARE ZERO BECAUSE OF AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET.


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6341

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus GROVER CARROLL GIBSON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-99-102; CA-02-541-2) Submitted: October 3, 2003 Decided: December 14, 2004 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Grover Carroll Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Grover Carroll Gibson appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The district court granted a certificate of appealability. On appeal, Gibson argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to object to his offense level adjustment under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B) (1998) (adjustment based on the number of firearms involved in the offense). Specifically, Gibson asserts that, because he was permitted under North Carolina law to possess firearms in his home, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-415.1(a) (Supp. 1998), the firearms recovered from his home could not be used to calculate the number of firearms involved in his offense. See USSG § 2K2.1, comment. (n.9) (“For purposes of calculating the number of firearms under subsection (b)(1), count only those firearms that were . . . unlawfully possessed.”). However, we find that any objection by counsel would have been futile. Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) (2000), does prevent federal prosecution for a felon in possession of a firearm when a state has restored a person’s civil rights on the predicate felony. But when, as here, a state restricts a felon from possessing firearms in certain situations (e.g., outside of his home or business), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) prohibits him from possessing any guns at all , even those permitted under state law. See United States v. Caron , 524 U.S. 308, 315-17 ( 1998). Thus, Gibson has- 3 - failed to make a prima facie showing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 688-89 (1984). We deny Gibson’s motions for summary judgment and to appoint counsel. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1183 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1183

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and one

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  113 South Main Street in Sylvania, Georgia, as the ``G. Elliot Hagan 
                         Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 113 
South Main Street in Sylvania, Georgia, shall be known and designated 
as the ``G. Elliot Hagan Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``G. Elliot Hagan Post Office 
Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

A.D., a child

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 12

- 4656

[December 10, 2014 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Carlos Rodriguez , Judge; L.T. Case No. 12000441DL

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ellen Griffin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mark J. Hamel, Assistant Attorney General, Wes t Palm Beach, for appellee.

D AMOORGIAN
, C.J.

A.D., a juvenile, appeals from a restitution order following the court’s acceptance of his plea of no contest to one count of burglary of a dwelling and one count of grand theft. Appellant first argues that t here was not

sufficient valuation evidence to support the trial court’s restitution order

. We disagree, concluding that the record evidence supports the trial court’s valuations. Next, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in awarding restitution for a camera because it was not specifically listed as an item stolen in the grand theft count contained in Appellant’s petition for delinquency. Appellant is correct

.

As we explained in S.S. v. State , 122 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013),

“ [w] hen a defendant agrees to pay restitution as part of a plea agreement, the defendant’s agreement is limited to restitution arising out of the offense charged by the [s] tate as reflected in the information and/or by

the factu al basis for the plea

. ” Id. at 502 (quoting Malarkey v. State , 975 So. 2d 538, 540−41 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)). In other words, “in order for the court to require restitution, either the arrest affidavit or the facts- 2

-

admitted by the juvenile at the time of th e plea must include the items

for which the court orders r estitution .” Id.

Here, there was no mention of a camera in the arrest affidavit, the petition for delinquency, or at the plea hearing. Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order as it pertains to the camera and remand for the trial

court to recalculate the amount of restitution consistent with this opinion

.

Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part and Remanded.

S TEVENSON and G ROSS
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                        Washington, D.C. 20549

                      ___________________________

                               FORM 10-Q

              Quarterly Report Under Section 13 or 15(d)

                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

                   ________________________________

 For the Quarter ended  March 31, 1999 Commission File Number  1-5447 


                  PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RAILROAD

    Pennsylvania                             25-6002536                
 (State of Organization)            (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

                       Telephone -(304)926-1124*

 Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
 required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
 Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period
 that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
 subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

     Yes   X        No      

 Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's
 classes of common stock, as of the close of the period covered by this
 report.

          1,510,000 shares of beneficial interest, without par value.


                      ___________________________

 * Notices and communications from the Securities and Exchange Commission
 for the registrant may be sent to Robert A. Hamstead, Secretary and
 Treasurer, #2 Port Amherst Drive, Charleston, WV 25306.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DRE’SHAUN E. BURNS, 

Defendant. 

8:23CR120 

ORDER 

 

 This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Continue Trial (Filing No. 41). 

Counsel is in a jury trial in state court and is unavailable. The government has indicated to 

the Court they have no objection to the continuance. For good cause shown, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Continue Trial (Filing No. 41) is granted as 

follows: 

1. The jury trial now set for July 15, 2024, is continued to August 19, 2024. 

 

2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Court finds that the ends 

of justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the 

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional 

time arising as a result of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between 

today’s date and August 19, 2024, shall be deemed excludable time in any 

computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure 

to grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for 

effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv). 

 Dated this 2nd day of July 2024. 

BY THE COURT: 

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. 

Chief United States District Judge

8:23-cr-00120-RFR-MDN Doc # 42 Filed: 07/02/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 62
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.22

                              DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

      The following table describes the standard arrangements pursuant to which
non-employee directors of FirstMerit Corporation ("FirstMerit") will be
compensated for their services.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 ANNUAL BASE                     FEE PER                     FEE PER             FEE PER AUDIT COMMITTEE
RETAINER FEE                  BOARD MEETING             COMMITTEE MEETING                 MEETING
------------                  -------------             -----------------                 -------
<S>                           <C>                       <C>                      <C>
  $ 22,000                       $ 1,500(1)                  $ 1,350(1)                   $ 1,750(1)
</TABLE>

----------

(1) Directors will be paid $750 for telephonic Board and committee meetings.

      Each non-employee director who serves as the chair of a Board committee
will receive additional cash compensation of $1,350 per meeting, except the
chair of the Audit Committee who will receive $1,750 per Audit Committee
meeting. Also, the lead independent director will receive an additional $40,000.
FirstMerit may pay fees to directors who are former officers of FirstMerit or
its subsidiaries but not to directors who are incumbent officers of FirstMerit
or its subsidiaries.

      On the day after the Annual Meeting of Shareholders, each non-employee
director is annually awarded under the 2002 Stock Option Plan NQSOs to purchase
3,000 shares of Common Stock. This amount may be increased from time to time by
the Board, but cannot exceed 10,000 shares annually.

      In addition, each non-employee director will be awarded under the 2002
Stock Option Plan a one-time grant of 1,000 restricted shares at the time of
first election, or at the annual meeting after appointment, to the Board of
Directors, and 500 restricted shares annually on the day after the Annual
Meeting of Shareholders, each of which vest on the first year anniversary of the
date of grant, provided the director remains in office.
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Trustand Servicing Agreement dated as of August 7, 2018, by and among Morgan StanleyCapital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asServicer and Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCertificate Administrator and Custodian, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates Series 2018-MP (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms usedherein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.8 of the Agreement,I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do herebycertify that:

 

1.           A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from August 7,2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performanceper the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2.           To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer, has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/LeslieHayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector              

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

MATHEW BRAY,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,

Defendant.

8:23CV235

AMENDED FINAL PROGRESSION 

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Amend 

Progression. (Filing No. 34.) The motion is granted. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the provisions of the Court’s previous final progression 

order remain in effect, and in addition to those provisions, case progression shall be 

amended as follows:

1) The trial and pretrial conference will not be set at this time. The status 

conference presently scheduled for June 13, 2024, is canceled. A status 

conference to discuss case progression, the parties’ interest in 

settlement, and the trial and pretrial conference settings will be held 

with the appointed special master or assigned magistrate judge on 

September 5, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. by telephone. Counsel shall use the 

conferencing instructions assigned to this case to participate in the 

conference. (Filing No. 29)

2) The deadline for completing written discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36 and 

45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is August 30, 2024. Motions to 

compel written discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36 and 45 must be filed by 

September 13, 2024.

Note: A motion to compel, to quash, or for a disputed protective order 

shall not be filed without first contacting the chambers of the appointed 

special master or assigned magistrate judge to set a conference for 

discussing the parties’ dispute. 

3) The deposition deadline, including but not limited to depositions for oral 

testimony only under Rule 45, is August 30, 2024.

a. The maximum number of depositions that may be taken by the 

plaintiffs as a group and the defendants as a group is 10.

b. Depositions will be limited by Rule 30(d)(1). 

8:23-cv-00235-JFB Doc # 35 Filed: 06/07/24 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 123
2

4) The deadline for filing motions to dismiss and motions for summary 

judgment is September 27, 2024.

5) The deadline for filing motions to exclude testimony on Daubert and 

related grounds is September 27, 2024.

6) The parties shall comply with all other stipulations and agreements recited 

in their Rule 26(f) planning report that are not inconsistent with this order. 

7) All requests for changes of deadlines or settings established herein shall 

be directed to the appointed special master or assigned magistrate judge. 

Such requests will not be considered absent a showing of due diligence in 

the timely progression of this case and the recent development of 

circumstances, unanticipated prior to the filing of the motion, which require 

that additional time be allowed. 

Dated this 7th day of June, 2024.

SIGNED:

s/ Kate O. Rahel

Appointed Special Master

8:23-cv-00235-JFB Doc # 35 Filed: 06/07/24 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 124
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sarah Blanchette

v. Case No. 05-cv-183-SM

Saint Anselm College

ORDER

Re: Document No. 8, Proposed Discovery Plan

Ruling: Approved and adopted as a pretrial scheduling order.

Trial: September 2006. Pretrial conference is cancelled; the

parties differ with respect to whether a pretrial conference at

this early stage would prove useful, the only issue being

suitability of mediation. The parties are urged to arrange for

mediation within 90 days. If they cannot do so they shall, after

90 days, advise the court and request a pretrial conference at that

time, whereupon the court will consider whether mediation ought to

be ordered. 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief District Judge

Date: August 26, 2005

cc: Bennett H. Klein, Esq.

H. Jonathan Meyer, Esq.

Jennifer L. Levi, Esq.

David W. McGrath, Esq.

Sean M. Gorman, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00183-SM Document 9 Filed 08/26/05 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 99.1



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 Fiscal Quarter End Report of Cash Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-QSB-A for the period ending February 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, being, Bruce Korman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Edmund King,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectfully, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



Dated: June 26,
2003



|/s/ Bruce
Korman        |  | /s/ Edmund
King        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Chief Executive Officer |  | Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-277-01-B

Praelou Roberts

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the February 7, 2006

trial in the above case. Defendant cites the need for additional

time to investigate this matter, prepare for trial or complete

plea negotiations. The government does not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

for negotiations and/or properly prepare for trial, the court

will continue the trial from February 7, 2006 to June 6, 2006. 

In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00277-PB Document 11 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 2
3

The January 31, 2006 final pretrial conference is continued

until May 25, 2006 at 4:00 pm.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

Chief Judge

January 30, 2006

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Arnold Huftalen, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00277-PB Document 11 Filed 01/30/06 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

MICHAEL EDWARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,

Defendant.

8:23CV216

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to withdraw as counsel of record (Filing No. 93) is 

granted and Charles A. Delbridge is deemed withdrawn as counsel of record for Plaintiff in this 

case. The Clerk of Court shall terminate electronic notice to Charles A. Delbridge in this case. 

Dated this 16th day of October, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cv-00216-JFB-MDN Doc # 94 Filed: 10/16/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 1109