alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

V .

Frank Emery

Case No . 07-cr-117-01-SM

ORDER

Defendant Emery's motion to continue the final pretrial conference an d

trial is granted (document 17) . Trial has been rescheduled for the September

2007 trial period. Defendant Emery shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than August 16, 2007 . On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall

be effective .

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S .C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference : August 30, 2007 at 3 :00 p .m.

Jury Selection : September 5, 2007 at 9 :30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00117-SM Document 19 Filed 08/21/07 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED .

August 21, 2007

cc : Mark Sisti, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Steven J/McAuliffe

Chief Judge

2

Case 1:07-cr-00117-SM Document 19 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 2
fcel-ex1030_525.htm



EXHIBIT 10.30

SUMMARY OF CASH INCENTIVE PLAN
OF FUELCELL ENERGY, INC.

The following is a description of the cash incentive plan (the “Incentive Plan”) of FuelCell Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) provided pursuant to Item 601(b)(10)(iii) of Regulation S-K promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which requires a written description of a compensatory plan when no formal plan document exists.

The Incentive Plan is intended to retain key executives and employees and to motivate such executives and employees to accomplish certain Company goals and objectives.  All of the executive officers of the Company (including the named executive officers that continued to be employed by the Company as of July 22, 2019), as well as certain other key employees previously identified by management, are eligible to participate in the Incentive Plan.

Under the Incentive Plan, cash bonuses in an aggregate amount of $495,000 may be awarded to eligible participants, with the first bonus payment, which accounts for 33% of each participant’s bonus amount, being made on July 22, 2019 and the following three bonus payments, each of which accounts for approximately 22% of each participant’s bonus amount, being made only upon the achievement of certain milestones – specifically, (i) the receipt of certain customer payments, (ii) the closing of a refinancing of the Company’s senior secured credit facility, and (iii) the submission of an updated three year business plan to the Board of Directors of the Company demonstrating additional top line revenue and cost savings not in the then-current financing models.

In connection with the Incentive Plan, the Company entered into a letter agreement, on or about July 16, 2019, with each of the Incentive Plan participants, describing the bonus payments that may be received by such participants.  The form of such letter agreement has been filed as an exhibit to the Company’s Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2019.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kevin D. Hall

v. Civil No. 08-cv-176-JL

Cheshire County

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated October 14, 2008.

SO ORDERED.

October 30, 2008 _________________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

cc: Kevin D. Hall , Pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00176-JL Document 16 Filed 10/30/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kevin D. Hall

v. Civil No. 08-cv-352-PB

State of New Hampshire

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pro se petitioner Kevin Hall has filed a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his

Keene District Court conviction on phone harassment charges

(document no. 1). The petition initially came before me for

preliminary review to determine whether or not the claims raised

in the petition are facially valid and may proceed. See Rule 4

of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

District Courts (“§ 2254 Rules”); see also United States District

Court District of New Hampshire Local Rule (“LR”) 4.3(d)(2)

(authorizing magistrate judge to preliminarily review pro se

prisoner filings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). 

On December 1, 2008, I issued an Order directing Hall to

amend his petition to demonstrate that the claims therein had

been fully exhausted in the state courts. Hall has not filed a

Case 1:08-cv-00352-PB Document 9 Filed 04/30/09 Page 1 of 2
1Hall’s December 22, 2008 letter to the court stating that

he would be on “mental leave” until January 6, 2009, and his

February 22, 2008 letter to the Court indicating that he would be

on “mental vacation” until April 15, 2009, do not suffice as

motions to extend Hall’s January 5, 2009 deadline to file his

response to my December 1 Order.

2

response to my Order.1 Hall has not, therefore, demonstrated

that the claims in his petition have been exhausted. 

Accordingly, I recommend that this matter be dismissed without

prejudice to the refiling of a timely petition upon completion of

exhaustion in the state courts. 

Any objections to this report and recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992);

United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 29, 2009

cc: Kevin D. Hall, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00352-PB Document 9 Filed 04/30/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Daniel Riley

v. Civil No. 08-cv-73-JD

Strafford County Department

of Corrections, Superintendent

and United States of America

O R D E R

The undersigned recuses himself from presiding over this

case. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: March 5, 2008

cc: Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, Esquire

Ann M. Rice, Esquire

Daniel Riley, pro se

Thomas Velardi, Esquire

Case 1:08-cv-00073-GZS Document 4 Filed 03/05/08 Page 1 of 1
41

C.7. Local Trends in Farm Income and Expenditures as Reported by Banks in Each RegionPercent

Farm income Farm household spending Farm capital sp

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same 

Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2002: Q1... 8 32 60 16 63 21 10 3

 Q2... 58 41 2 19 68 12 49 4 Q3... 58 33 9 34 60 6 55 4 Q4... 48 22 30 27 56 17 46 32003: Q1... 52 27 20 30 52 18 53 3 Q2... 28 50 22 19 65 16 34 5 Q3... 28 47 25 17 70 13 31 6 Q4... 8 33 59 6 61 33 16 52004: Q1... 7 25 68 5 52 43 8 4

Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2002: Q1... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Q2... 65 33 2 35 54 11 63 3 Q3... 70 27 3 33 56 11 65 3 Q4... 63 30 8 40 50 9 65 32003: Q1... 72 24 5 44 48 8 68 3 Q2... 36 47 17 27 59 13 46 4 Q3... 22 46 32 18 68 15 36 4 Q4... 17 35 48 10 64 25 20 52004: Q1... 11 42 47 8 68 25 16 5

Twelfth (San Francisco) Federal Reserve District (AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA)

2002: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.

 Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n. Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n. Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.2003: Q1... 57 22 22 52 30 17 52 3 Q2... 50 35 15 46 46 8 58 2 Q3... 46 38 17 33 63 4 46 4 Q4... 30 22 48 17 70 13 26 32004: Q1... 18 55 27 14 73 14 27 5 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. n.a. Not available. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
*Release Date: September 30, 2003*

*Other formats:*
ASCII (2 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (2 KB)

----

```
B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
```

| Year | Estimated volume (billions of dollars) | Share of outstanding farm production loans (percent) |
|------|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
||
| 82   | 14                                     | 20                                                   | 29 | 18 | .237 | .039 | .062 | .083 | .050 |
| 54   | 7                                      | 16                                                   | 5 | 26 | .155 | .020 | .049 | .014 | .069 |
| 69   | 10                                     | 11                                                   | 15 | 33 | .187 | .026 | .032 | .037 | .082 |
| 51   | -2                                     | 14                                                   | 13 | 25 | .131 | -.004 | .039 | .032 | .061 |
| 95   | 16                                     | 27                                                   | 24 | 30 | .240 | .039 | .070 | .058 | .071 |
| 93   | 6                                      | 19                                                   | 19 | 50 | .230 | .014 | .049 | .045 | .112 |
| 87   | 4                                      | 15                                                   | 24 | 45 | .198 | .008 | .036 | .051 | .095 |
| 126  | 18                                     | 37                                                   | 35 | 36 | .280 | .040 | .086 | .078 | .080 |
| 108  | 11                                     | 17                                                   | 34 | 45 | .259 | .027 | .041 | .075 | .098 |
| 308  | 67                                     | 53                                                   | 140 | 48 | .656 | .142 | .118 | .294 | .101 |
| 221  | 40                                     | 50                                                   | 58 | 73 | .471 | .085 | .114 | .124 | .157 |
| n.a. | 34                                     | 35                                                   | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | .074 | .080 | n.a. | n.a. |
```
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported
amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign results for large banks that
report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal
definition of agricultural loans. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.
```

*Other formats:*
ASCII (2 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (2 KB)

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1350 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1350

To restore freedom of choice to women in the uniformed services serving 
                       outside the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2001

  Ms. Sanchez (for herself, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Allen, Mr. Baca, Mr. 
 Baldacci, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Bentsen, Mr. Berman, Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. 
Blumenauer, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Capuano, Ms. Carson of Indiana, Mr. 
Cummings, Mr. Davis of Florida, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. DeFazio, 
  Mr. Delahunt, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Dooley of California, Mr. Evans, Mr. 
 Farr of California, Mr. Filner, Mr. Frank, Mr. Frost, Ms. Harman, Mr. 
Hinchey, Ms. Norton, Mr. Holt, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Jackson-Lee 
of Texas, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Lantos, Mrs. 
   Lowey, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Maloney of Connecticut, Mr. 
 Matsui, Ms. McCollum, Mr. McDermott, Mr. McGovern, Ms. McKinney, Mr. 
 Meehan, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. George Miller of California, Mrs. 
 Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Nadler, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Payne, 
 Ms. Rivers, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Serrano, 
   Mr. Shays, Mr. Simmons, Ms. Solis, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tauscher, Mrs. 
Thurman, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Towns, Ms. Velazquez, Ms. 
Waters, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Wexler, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Wynn, and Mr. Sherman) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To restore freedom of choice to women in the uniformed services serving 
                       outside the United States.

    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 ``Freedom of Choice for Women in the 
Uniformed Services Act''.

SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF PRIOR POLICY REGARDING RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF 
              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MEDICAL FACILITIES.

    Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(a) Restriction on Use of Funds.--''; and
            (2) by striking subsection (b).
                                 <all>
```
[No. 34400.

Department One.

February 27, 1958.]

#### Charles L. Adkison *et al., Respondents,*v. John T. Thompson *et al.,*Appellants.1

*Hawkins & Loy,*for appellants.

*Boose & Garrison,*for respondents.

1

Reported in 322 P. (2d) 136.

Finley, J.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries which plaintiff, Charles L. Adkison, alleged he received when defendant, John T. Thompson, allegedly, committed a battery upon his person through the operation of a bulldozer. The case was tried to a jury. The evidence is sharply conflicting as to the facts surrounding the incident in question. The jury apparently believed plaintiffs’ version of the alleged battery, and it returned a verdict for plaintiffs in the amount of one thousand dollars. Defendants have appealed.

*900Appellants’ assignments of error raise but two questions: (1) Whether instruction No. VIII, as given, was prejudicially erroneous, and (2) whether the evidence supports the verdict. An examination of all instructions given convinces us that any possible technical deficiency in instruction No. VIII was adequately covered in other instructions. After a careful reading of the record, we must conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. *Samuelsen v. Merry Mfg. Co.*(1957), 50 Wn. (2d) 819, 314 P. (2d) 634.

The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Hill, C. J., Ott, Foster, and Hunter, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 17, 2015

No. 04

- 15

- 00249

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.H.T., J.H.T., J.R.T.H., J.I.T.V., B.Z.T.V. , Minor Children

From the 111th Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CVL

- 002007

- D2

Honorable Monica Z. Notzon , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion issued this date, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack

of jurisdiction. It is ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed against appellant because she

qualifies as an indigent under Tex. R. App. P. 20.1.

It is so ORDERED on June 17, 2015

.

_____________________________ Jason Pulliam , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 17th day of June, 2015

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 Quarterly Report of National Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alan B. Levin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Alan B. Levin


Alan B. Levin


Chief Financial Officer


August 16, 2010
37

C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm Loans

Percent

Feeder cattle Other operating Intermediate non-real- Long-term real

Quarter loans loans1 estate loans estate loans

Seventh (Chicago) Federal Reserve District (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*)

2000: Q2... 10.1 10.4 n.a. 9.2

 Q3... 10.1 10.2 n.a. 9.4

 Q4... 9.9 9.9 n.a. 8.9

2001: Q1... 9.2 9.2 n.a. 8.2

 Q2... 8.6 8.6 n.a. 7.9

 Q3... 8.1 8.0 n.a. 7.5

 Q4... 7.5 7.4 n.a. 7.2

2002: Q1... 7.5 7.3 n.a. 7.2

 Q2... 7.3 7.3 n.a. 7.1

 Q3... 7.2 7.2 n.a. 6.8

 Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2000: Q2... 10.4 10.5 10.3 9.7

 Q3... 10.4 10.5 10.3 9.7

 Q4... 10.3 10.5 10.2 9.7

2001: Q1... 9.6 9.8 9.5 8.9

 Q2... 9.0 9.1 9.0 8.5

 Q3... 8.4 8.6 8.5 8.0

 Q4... 7.8 8.1 8.2 7.6

2002: Q1... 7.7 7.9 7.9 7.5

 Q2... n.a. 8.1 8.0 7.7

 Q3... n.a. 7.9 7.9 7.5

Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2000: Q2... n.a. 10.1 10.2 9.4

 Q3... n.a. 10.5 10.4 9.7

 Q4... n.a. 10.4 10.3 9.6

2001: Q1... n.a. 9.8 9.8 9.1

 Q2... n.a. 9.3 9.3 8.6

 Q3... n.a. 8.9 8.9 8.5

 Q4... n.a. 8.2 8.1 7.6

2002: Q1... n.a. 7.5 7.7 7.3

 Q2... n.a. 7.6 7.7 7.4

 Q3... n.a. 7.4 7.5 7.2

Eleventh (Dallas) Federal Reserve District (LA*, NM*, TX)

2000: Q2... 11.0 10.8 10.7 10.2

 Q3... 11.0 11.0 10.8 10.1

 Q4... 11.0 11.1 10.8 10.2

2001: Q1... 10.3 10.4 10.1 9.5

 Q2... 9.7 9.7 9.5 9.0

 Q3... 9.2 9.2 9.2 8.5

 Q4... 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.0

2002: Q1... 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.0

 Q2... 8.1 8.2 8.2 7.8

 Q3... 8.1 8.1 8.1 7.8
38

C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm Loans (continued)

Percent

Feeder cattle Other operating Intermediate non-real Long-term real

Quarter loans loans1 -estate loans estate loans

Fifth (Richmond) Federal Reserve District (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 

2000: Q2... 10.4 10.6 10.4 10.1

 Q3... 10.6 10.6 10.4 9.9

 Q4... 10.5 10.4 10.1 9.8

2001: Q1... 9.4 9.4 9.2 8.9

 Q2... 8.6 11.0 8.5 8.3

 Q3... 8.2 7.9 8.0 7.6

 Q4... 9.9 7.2 7.2 7.0

2002: Q1... 7.0 7.1 9.4 7.3

 Q2... 7.5 7.3 7.5 7.2

 Q3... 7.3 6.9 7.3 7.2

 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of

livestock (including poultry).

 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.

 n.a. Not available.

 Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
Exhibit 99.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Elan Yaish,  Chief Financial  Officer of Manchester  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company"),  do hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  that,  to my
knowledge:

1.   the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly  period
     ended April 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
     (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 results of operations of the Company.


Date: June 16, 2003

/S/     Elan Yaish
Elan Yaish
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
AO 472 (Rev. 11/16), modified by NED (9/17) 

Page 1 of 2 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v. Case No. 8:23cr109 

 

ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL

Defendant

Part I - Eligibility for Detention

 Upon the 

☒ Motion of the Government attorney pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1), 

the Court held a detention hearing and found that detention is warranted. 

 This order sets forth the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), in 

addition to any other findings made at the hearing. 

Part II - Findings of Fact and Law as to Presumptions under § 3142(e) 

 

Part III - Analysis and Statement of the Reasons for Detention

After considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) and the information presented at the detention hearing, 

the Court concludes that the defendant must be detained pending trial because the Government has proven:

☒ By clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure 

the safety of any other person and the community. 

☒ By a preponderance of evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the 

defendant’s appearance as required. 

In addition to any findings made on the record at the hearing, the reasons for detention include the following: 

☒ Weight of evidence against the defendant is strong 

☒ Prior criminal history 

☒ Participation in criminal activity while on probation, parole, or supervision 

☒ History of violence or use of weapons 

☒ History of alcohol or substance abuse 

☒ Lack of stable employment 

☒ Lack of stable residence 

☒ Lack of significant community or family ties to this district 

☒ Significant family or other ties outside the United States 

☒ Lack of legal status in the United States 

☒ Subject to removal or deportation after serving any period of incarceration 

☒ Background information unknown or unverified 

OTHER REASONS OR FURTHER EXPLANATION: 

 

Part IV - Directions Regarding Detention

8:23-cr-00109-BCB-SMB Doc # 14 Filed: 05/22/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 18
Page 2 of 2

 

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the Attorney General or to the Attorney General’s designated representative 

for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or 

being held in custody pending appeal. The defendant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation 

with defense counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, the person 

in charge of the corrections facility must deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance 

in connection with a court proceeding. 

Date: 5/22/2023 s/ Susan M. Bazis 

 United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00109-BCB-SMB Doc # 14 Filed: 05/22/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 19