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

DISTRICT OF COLORADO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE

(For Revocation of Supervised Release)

v. Case Number: 11-cr-00391-LTB-01 

DANIEL CANTER

USM Number: 38142-013

Edward Harris, AFPD

 (Defendant's Attorney)

THE DEFENDANT: Admitted guilt to violations 3 and 4, as alleged in the probation officer's petition.

The defendant is adjudicated guilty of this violation: 

Violation Number Nature of Violation

Violation

Ended

3 Possession and Use of a Controlled Substance 01/28/14 

4 Possession and Use of a Controlled Substance 01/27/14 

The defendant is sentenced as provided in page 2 of this judgment. The sentence is imposed

pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

The defendant has not committed violations 1 and 2 and is discharged as to such violations.

It is ordered that the defendant must notify the United States Attorney for this district within 30

days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special

assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid. If ordered to pay restitution, the defendant must

notify the court and United States Attorney of material changes in economic circumstances.

It is further ordered that the Addendum to this judgment, which contains the defendant’s social

security number, residence address and mailing address, shall be withheld from the court file and

retained by the United States Probation Department.

June 3, 2014

Date of Imposition of Judgment

 s/Lewis T. Babcock

Signature of Judge

Lewis T. Babcock, Senior U.S. District Judge

Name & Title of Judge

 June 5, 2014 

Date

Case 1:11-cr-00391-LTB Document 95 Filed 06/05/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
DEFENDANT: DANIEL CANTER

CASE NUMBER: 11-cr-00391-LTB-01 Judgment-Page 2 of 2

 

IMPRISONMENT

The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be

imprisoned for a total term of eleven (11) months.

The Court recommends that the Bureau of Prisons designate defendant to FCI Florence,

Colorado.

The Court also recommends that the Bureau of Prisons credit defendant with 118 days spent in

official detention before the offense.

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.

RETURN

I have executed this judgment as follows:

 

 

 

 

Defendant delivered on to 

at , with a certified copy of this judgment.

 UNITED STATES MARSHAL 

By 

 Deputy United States Marshal

Case 1:11-cr-00391-LTB Document 95 Filed 06/05/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

In connectionwith the annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of United Wisconsin Grain Producers,LLC (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Kevin Roche, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |  /s/  Kevin Roche                 |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Kevin Roche                            |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Dated:  May 17, 2004              |

 

----
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, Eugene B. Witkowicz, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of TierOne Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)   The Annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended
      December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C
      78m(a) or 78o(d); and

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


                                             By:   /s/ Eugene B. Witkowicz
                                                --------------------------------
                                                   Eugene B. Witkowicz
                                                   Executive Vice President and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer

Date: March 26, 2003
**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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Hickory Tech Corporation (HickoryTech)on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John E. Duffy,Chief Executive Officer of HickoryTech, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ John E.  Duffy       |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| John E.  Duffy           |
| Chief  Executive Officer |
| August 13,  2002         |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLICACCOUNTANTS

 

We have issued our report dated October 17, 2003, accompanying theconsolidated financial statements and schedule of Ciprico Inc. andsubsidiaries which is incorporated by reference or included in their AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2003.  We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference of said report in the Registration Statement of Ciprico Inc. andsubsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-47840, File No. 33-78116, File No.33-64999, File No. 33-65001, File No. 333-02931, File No. 333-02933, File No.333-42841, File No. 333-42843, File No. 333-42845 and File No. 333-61018).

 

 
| /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP                        |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                          |   |
| Minneapolis, Minnesota  December 5, 2003 |   |

 

1

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-0434-RBJ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

JAN MICHAEL PHILLIPS,

Defendant.

AMENDED ORDER SETTING TRIAL, DATES AND DEADLINES

This matter has been scheduled for a four-day jury trial on the docket of Judge R. 

Brooke Jackson in the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. District Courthouse, Courtroom A702, 7th Floor, 

901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado, to commence January 10th, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. It is 

ORDERED that all pretrial motions shall be filed by November 23, 2011 and responses 

to these motions shall be filed by December 7, 2011. It is further

ORDERED that expert witness disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 shall be made 

no later than seven days before the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any challenges to such 

experts shall be made by the pretrial motion filing deadline. It is further

ORDERED that disclosures regarding rebuttal expert witnesses shall be made one week 

after the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any challenges to such experts shall be made no 

later than two weeks after the pretrial motions deadline. It is further 

ORDERED that counsel shall jointly contact Mary DeRosa by telephone at (303) 844-

4694 or by email at Jackson_chambers@cod.uscourts.gov within five days after filing of pretrial motions to set the case for Motions Hearing. It is further

Case 1:11-cr-00434-RBJ Document 10 Filed 11/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
ORDERED that a Trial Preparation Conference is scheduled for January 4, 2012 at 9:00 

a.m. in Courtroom A702. Lead counsel who will try the case shall attend in person. 

During the Trial Preparation Conference the parties should be prepared to address: jury 

instructions, jury selection, witnesses and evidence, anticipated evidentiary issues, stipulations as 

to fact, and any other issue affecting the duration or course of the trial.

For additional information, please review my practice standards located at 

www.cod.uscourts.gov/Judges/Judges.aspx.

If the parties reach a disposition, the Trial Preparation Conference will be converted to a 

Change of Plea Hearing. The deadline for submitting the plea agreement and statement of facts 

relevant to sentencing and the statement by defendant in advance of plea of guilty will be 48 

hours prior to the Change of Plea Hearing.

DATED this 8

th day of November , 2011.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00434-RBJ Document 10 Filed 11/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 24.1



POWER OF ATTORNEY



KNOW BY ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned director of World Health Alternatives, Inc., a Florida Corporation, does make, constitute and appoint Richard E.
McDonald, with full power and authority his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, for him and his name, place and stead in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report of World Health Alternatives, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2003, and to file such Annual Report, so signed, with all exhibits thereto, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby further granting unto said attorney-in-fact full power and authority to do and perform any and all acts and
things requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person; the undersigned hereby ratifies and confirms all that said attorney and agent, shall do or cause to be done
by virtue hereof.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE UNDERSIGNED HAS HEREUNTO SET HIS
HAND AND SEAL THIS 19th day of April 2004.



|                         |  |       
|------------------------ |  | ------
|/s/ John W. Higbee       |  | (SEAL)
|John W. Higbee, Director |  |
Dismiss and Opinion Filed August 23, 2013 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00581-CR 

No. 05-13-00583-CR 

WHITFIELD DAVIS EDWARDS, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-17106-V, F10-17107-V 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices O’Neill, Francis, and Fillmore 

Opinion by Justice Francis 

Whitfield Davis Edwards pleaded guilty to two offenses of tampering with government 

records. Following plea agreements in each, the trial court deferred adjudicating appellant’s 

guilt and placed him on community supervision for two years. The court also assessed a $1,200 

fine in cause no. 05-13-00581-CR. Punishment was assessed in open court on February 19, 

2013, and the trial court certified that appellant was appealing the rulings on pretrial motions. 

Appellant filed motions for new trial on February 21, 2013 and notices of appeal on April 24, 

2013. We conclude we lack jurisdiction over the appeals. 

A motion for new trial is not a remedy available to a defendant who receives deferred 

adjudication. See Donovan v. State, 68 S.W.3d 633, 636 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Thus, a 

motion for new trial is ineffective to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal in a case in 
 –2– 

which the defendant has received deferred adjudication. Murray v. State, 89 S.W.3d 187, 188 

(Tex. App.––Dallas 2002, pet. ref’d). 

In each case, the trial court deferred adjudicating appellant’s guilt on February 19, 2013. 

Therefore, appellant’s notices of appeal were due within thirty days of that date, that is, by 

March 21, 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1); Murray, 89 S.W.3d at 188. Appellant’s April 

24, 2013 notices of appeal are untimely, leaving us without jurisdiction over the appeals. See 

Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam). 

We dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

130581F.U05 

 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

WHITFIELD DAVIS EDWARDS, 

Appellant 

No. 05-13-00581-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F10-17106-V. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. 

Justices O’Neill and Fillmore participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered August 23, 2013 

 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

WHITFIELD DAVIS EDWARDS, 

Appellant 

No. 05-13-00583-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F10-17107-V. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. 

Justices O’Neill and Fillmore participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered August 23, 2013 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2164

CHRISTOPHER ARLANDO NEWMAN, Petitioner,
versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A75-843-593) Submitted: March 19, 2007 Decided: March 29, 2007 Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marc Seguinót, SEGUINÓT & ASSOCIATES, P.C., McLean, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Kelly J. Walls, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Christopher Arlando Newman, a na tive and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider. We review the Board’s decision to grant or deny a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006). A motion for reconsideration asserts that the Board made an error in its earlier decision, Turri v. INS , 997 F.2d 1306, 1311 n.4 (10th Cir. 1993), and requires the movant to specify the error of fact or law in the prior Board decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2006); Matter of Cerna , 20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 402 (BIA 1991) (noting that a motion to reconsider questions a decision for alleged errors in appraising the facts and the law). The burden is on the movant to establish that reconsideration is warranted. INS v. Abudu , 485 U.S. 94, 110 (1988). “To be within a mile of being granted, a motion for reconsideration has to give the tribunal to which it is addressed a reason for changing its mind.” Ahmed v. Ashcroft , 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004). Motions that simply repeat contentions that have already been rejected are insufficient to convince the Board to reconsider a previous decision. Id. We find the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding that Newman’s conviction for unlawful conversion of merchandise was a crime of moral turpitude. We further find the Board did not- 3 - abuse its discretion in finding that the immigration judge specified the charges for which he was ordered removed. In addition, the immigration judge’s failure to rule on other charges of removability was harmless error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-61013

Summary Calendar

 

MARCOS WASHINGTON CUBAS; MARIA DE CARMEN

MONSALVE DE CUBAS; MARIE ELLA CUBAS, 

Petitioners,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A29 387 824

BIA No. A39 387 831

BIA No. A29 387 833

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marcos Washington Cubas, his wife, Maria De Carmen

Monsalve De Cubas, and their daughter, Marie Ella Cubas, petition

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) opinion

that affirmed the decision of the immigration judge denying Cubas

asylum and withholding of removal. 

The Cubases argues that the immigration judge’s finding that

Cubas failed to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 4, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 03-61013

-2-

fear of future persecution is not supported by substantial

evidence in light of his testimony and the evidence he submitted

at the immigration hearing. We review the immigration judge’s

decision because the BIA summarily affirmed the immigration

judge’s decision, thereby making it the final agency decision. 

See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832 (5th Cir. 2003). We

will uphold the immigration judge’s determination that Cuba is

not eligible for asylum if it is supported by substantial

evidence. Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). To

reverse the immigration judge’s determination that Cubas is not

eligible for asylum, he must demonstrate the evidence was so

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against

it. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). Cubas has

failed to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, the petition

for review is DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02595-RPM

CHRISTINE DOCKSEY and

ROSS DOCKSEY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

 TAYLOR JANDA,

Defendant.

 

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

 

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 16, it is

ORDERED that a scheduling conference will be held on January 10, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. in the

Conference Room, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 1823 Stout Street, Denver,

Colorado. Counsel are directed to comply with the Instructions for Preparation of Scheduling Order which

may be found at http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/judges/judges.aspx (Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch

Procedures) and use the format provided with those instructions (Rev. 1/08). The proposed order (original

only) on paper, shall be submitted directly to chambers by 4:00 p.m. on January 5, 2012.

 The conference is conducted with lead counsel present in person. No parties or representatives of

parties will be permitted to attend.

Dated: November 9th , 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02595-RPM Document 3 Filed 11/09/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7165

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALONZO DAVID DABNEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CR-98-23, CA-00-752-7) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alonzo David Dabney, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce A. Pagel, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Alonzo David Dabney appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and findno reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Dabney , Nos. CR-98-23; CA-00-752-7 (W.D. Va. May 18, 2001). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00434-RBJ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. JAN MICHAEL PHILLIPS

Defendant.

 

ORDER 

 

ORDERED: 

Pursuant to Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i), counsel for the government may disclose preliminarily to 

the trial in this case, the transcript of the testimony and exhibits of any grand jury witness that 

the government may call at trial under the following conditions:

1.) There shall be no reproduction or dissemination of the material by the defendant or by 

defense counsel.

2.) The grand jury material shall be retained in the custody of the office of the attorney 

for the defendant.

3.) The grand jury material provided by the government shall be returned to the 

government at the conclusion of this case or pending further order of the Court.

4.) That disclosure of the grand jury matter is limited to the defendant and to counsel 

appearing for the defendant in this case and the material is to be used only for this case.

Case 1:11-cr-00434-RBJ Document 12 Filed 11/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
DATED this 21st day of November, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 

R. BROOKE JACKSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLORADO

I

Case 1:11-cr-00434-RBJ Document 12 Filed 11/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2