alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Christina Cohen, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Sallie Mae Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-00608-TUC-DCB

ORDER 

 Upon stipulation of the parties and good cause showing, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. be 

dismissed with prejudice from this action, each party to bear its own costs and attorneys 

fees. The case will remain pending against Defendants Navient Solutions, Inc. 

 Dated this 27th day of September, 2016. 

Honorable David C. Bury United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 57 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Rikki Alison Drennan,

Defendant.

No. CR-16-00114-02-PHX-SPL

DETENTION ORDER

On July 30, 2020, Defendant appeared before this Court on a petition for revocation 

of supervised release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The Court 

considered the petition and file in determining whether Defendant should be released on 

conditions set by the Court.

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

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

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

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

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

3143.

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

Dated this 30th day of July, 2020.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:16-cr-00114-SPL Document 140 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SERGIO ACEVEDO

- RAMOS,

Petitioner,

v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 72571

Agency No. A208

- 304

- 851

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 18, 2019 **

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Acevedo

- Ramos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigrati on Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for su bstantial evidence the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

SEP 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 72571

agency’s factual findings. Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review

. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Acevedo

Ramos failed to establish that the harm he suffered or fears in Mexico was or
would be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007,
1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by
criminals motivated by theft or rando m violence by gang members bears no nexus
to a protected ground.”) . Thus, Acevedo

- Ramos’s asylum and withholding of

removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Acevedo

- Ramos’s

CAT claim because he failed to show it is mo re likely than not he will be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico.

See Garcia

- Milian , 755 F.3d at 1033

- 35 (concluding that petitioner did not
establish the necessary state action for CAT relief).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"Gemini VII","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3udcLy1CkC\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/gemini-vii\/\">Gemini VII<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/gemini-vii\/embed\/#?secret=3udcLy1CkC\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Gemini VII” — NASA\" data-secret=\"3udcLy1CkC\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/s65-63188_orig.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":600}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED MARCH 31, 2000
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             592
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                       178
<INVENTORY>                                      1,060
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,949
<PP&E>                                          84,160
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,229
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 121,282
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,183
<BONDS>                                         90,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           111
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,892)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   121,282
<SALES>                                         27,919
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,919
<CGS>                                           24,771
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,771
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,463
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,757
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,072)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (289)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,783)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I,
Kevin E. Shaffer, Chief Financial Officer of Educate, Inc. (the Company), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:



|1. | This Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Kevin E. ShafferName: Kevin E. Shaffer Date: April 30,
2007


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:15-mj-01801-JFM Document 4 Filed 11/04/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01801-JFM Document 4 Filed 11/04/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01801-JFM Document 4 Filed 11/04/15 Page 3 of 3
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Linda Herridge","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/linda-m-herridgenasa-gov\/","title":"The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project: Success Achieved for First Rendezvous and Docking of Two Nation\u2019s Spacecraft in Space","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"FeKmrPHYyO\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/the-apollo-soyuz-test-project-success-achieved-for-first-rendezvous-and-docking-of-two-nations-spacecraft-in-space\/\">The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project: Success Achieved for First Rendezvous and Docking of Two Nation\u2019s Spacecraft in Space<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/the-apollo-soyuz-test-project-success-achieved-for-first-rendezvous-and-docking-of-two-nations-spacecraft-in-space\/embed\/#?secret=FeKmrPHYyO\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project: Success Achieved for First Rendezvous and Docking of Two Nation\u2019s Spacecraft in Space” — NASA\" data-secret=\"FeKmrPHYyO\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/astp_commanders_meet.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":401}
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Special Emphasis Panel, NINDS T32 Training program.                    

*Date:*                         December 1-2, 2014.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         One Washington Circle, One Washington Circle NW., Washington, DC 20037.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Natalia Strunnikova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-402-0288,                         *natalia.strunnikova@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: October 17, 2014.

Carolyn Baum,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2014-25177 Filed 10-22-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Omar Lawson Allen, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-15-50186-001-PHX-DLR

ORDER OF DETENTION

Defendant appeared before this Court on a Petition for Revocation of Supervised

Release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The Court considered the

Petition and file in determining whether defendant should be released on conditions set by

the Court.

The Court finds that defendant has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he

does not pose a serious flight risk pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure.

The Court concludes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant is a serious

flight risk and that there is no condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably

assure his appearance at future proceedings.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further

proceedings.

DATED this 18th day of November, 2015.

Case 2:15-cr-50186-DLR Document 6 Filed 11/20/15 Page 1 of 1
#### Wills *v.*The State.

In error.

*Saturday,*January 13, 1838

AN indictment charged that the defendant did feloniously *stal,*take, and carry away, one watch of the value of five dollars, &c. Plea, not guilty. Verdict, “We find the defendant guilty of petit larceny, and that he be imprisoned,” &c. Motion in arrest of judgment overruled, and judgment on the verdict. *Held,*that the use of the word *stal*instead of *steal,*was not a sufficient cause to arrest the judgment; but that the verdict did not authorise the judgment, as the defendant might have been guilty of petit larceny without being guilty of the in the indictment.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Cleopatria Martinez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Maricopa County Community College 

District, et al., 

Defendants. 

NO. CV-15-01759-PHX-NVW

JUDGMENT ON ATTORNEY FEES 

 Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before the Court. The 

issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered. 

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Court’s Order filed May 

8, 2018, judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Maricopa County Community 

College District and Rufus and Debra Glasper against Plaintiff Cleopatria Martinez in the 

amount of $113,900.00 for attorneys’ fees, with interest at the federal rate of 2.24% per 

annum from the date of judgment until paid. 

 Brian D. Karth

 District Court Executive/Clerk of Court

May 8, 2018 

s/ A. Duran

 By Deputy Clerk

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 115 Filed 05/08/18 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:15-mj-01866-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/29/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01866-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/29/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01866-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/29/15 Page 3 of 3
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 648

To prohibit the Secretary of Defense from treating as allowable costs under

a defense contract any restructuring costs of the Boeing Company arising

from its acquisition of the McDonnell Douglas Corporation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 6, 1997

Mr. SANDERS (for himself and Mr. SMITH of New Jersey) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on National Security

A BILL

To prohibit the Secretary of Defense from treating as allowable costs under a defense contract any restructuring

costs of the Boeing Company arising from its acquisition

of the McDonnell Douglas Corporation.

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 ‘‘Boeing-McDonnell

5 Douglas Corporate Welfare Elimination Act of 1997’’.
2

•HR 648 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON TREATING RESTRUCTURING

2 COSTS OF BOEING COMPANY RESULTING

3 FROM ACQUISITION OF MCDONNELL DOUG4 LAS COMPANY AS ALLOWABLE COSTS UNDER

5 A DEFENSE CONTRACT.

6 The Secretary of Defense may not treat as an allow7 able cost under a defense contract (in accordance with sec8 tion 2324 of title 10, United States Code, and the regula9 tions prescribed under that section) any restructuring

10 costs of the Boeing Company arising from the acquisition

11 by that company of the McDonnell Douglas Corporation

12 announced on December 15, 1996.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7587

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus GERALD FELTON, a/k/a Big Mass, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-123-F) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Felton, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Blaise Hamilton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Even if Appellant's motion for reduction of sentence were construed as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, which has a sixty-day appeal period, the notice of appeal was untimely.
2 PER CURIAM: Gerald Felton filed an untimely notice of appeal from the district court's denial of his motion for reduction of sentence. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Criminal defendants have ten days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). * The only exception to the appeal period is when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b) upon a showing of excusable neglect.The district court entered its order on March 20, 1996; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on October 11, 1996. Appellant's failure to obtain an extension within the prescribed time frame leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED