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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Olegario Atondo-Renteria,

Defendant.

No. CR-15-01348-001-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

Defendant, Olegario Atondo-Renteria, has filed a “Request for Final Disposition of 

Indictment, Information, or Complaint” (hereinafter “Request”) (Doc 42) to which the 

Government has filed a Response. (Doc. 44). The Court will deny the Request.

Defendant’s Request asks “that a final disposition be made following indictment, 

information or complaint now pending against” him. (Doc. 42 a 2). But as the Government 

points out, no new charge(s) has been filed against him. (Doc. 44 at 1). So, there is no 

new indictment, information or complaint currently pending. 

Defendant states that he is aware that a current detainer has been placed on him and

regarding that “this request shall be deemed my waiver of extradition . . [and] in the 

alternative I would agree to a sentence in the form of a plea agreement, signed in absentia 

where the term imposed would be run concurrent with the sentence” he is currently serving. 

(Doc. 42 at 2). Because the Defendant’s Request is unclear, without support in the form of 

documentation, and not conforming to any federal rule of procedure, it must be denied. 

See Jacobus v. Alaska, 338 F.3d 1095, 1104 (9th Cir. 2003)(generally, courts invoke the 

Case 2:15-cr-01348-DJH Document 45 Filed 12/14/23 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

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

ripeness doctrine and refuse to decide matters which could involve “entangling themselves 

in abstract disagreements[.]). 

The Government also asserts that any alleged supervised release violation may be 

addressed upon the completion of Defendant’s state sentence. (Doc. 44 at 2). Indeed, the 

federal government is not constitutionally required to writ a defendant out of state custody 

and bring him into federal custody for purposes of executing a violation warrant. United 

States v. Garrett, 253 F.3d 443, 448 (9th Cir. 2001). So, if a federal detainer is pending, 

the federal government is within its discretion to wait until the Defendant is released from 

state custody to execute a federal detainer. Id. So, given that the writ has yet to be 

executed, there is nothing for the Court to further consider. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying the Defendant’s Request (Doc. 42).

Dated this 13th day of December, 2023.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cr-01348-DJH Document 45 Filed 12/14/23 Page 2 of 2
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.

Armondo Nodestine, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-15-8229-001-PCT-SPL

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.

///

///

///

///
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

- 2 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further

proceedings.

The Court finds excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7) from ____ to _____.

DATED this 7th day of December, 2018.
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 

Jesse Dwayne Flemons, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00586-TUC-JGZ

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United 

States Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco that recommends denying Petitioner’s 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 22.) 

 A review of the record reflects that the parties have not filed any objections to the 

Report and Recommendation and the time to file objections has expired. As such, the 

Court will not consider any objections or new evidence. 

 The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Velasco’s 

recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley 

v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 

 Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability 

must issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 22(b) requires the district court that rendered a judgment denying 

the petition made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 to "either issue a certificate of 
- 2 - 

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 

appealability or state why a certificate should not issue." Additionally, 28 U.S.C. 

§2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate may issue "only if the applicant has made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." In the certificate, the court 

must indicate which specific issues satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(3). A 

substantial showing is made when the resolution of an issue of appeal is debatable among 

reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve the issues differently, or if the issue deserves 

further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Upon review 

of the record in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court 

concludes that a certificate shall not issue as the resolution of the petition is not debatable 

among reasonable jurists and does not deserve further proceedings. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

1. Magistrate Judge Velasco’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is accepted 

and adopted; 

2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED; 

3. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 

accordingly. 

 Dated this 17th day of November, 2017.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of King
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. I, Brian A. Markison, Chief Executive Officer of King
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., certify, 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 this report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of King
     Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Date: March 16, 2005                            /s/ Brian A. Markison
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                                   Brian A. Markison
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
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.                  

###### Broadcasting Board of Governors

# Summary:

                        The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will meet in a special session to further discuss and consider the Fiscal Year 2016 budget. According to Office of                               ( print page 64364)                            Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11, Section 22.1, all agency budgetary materials and data are considered confidential prior to the President submitting a budget to Congress. In accordance with section 22.5 of Circular A-11, the BBG has determined that its meeting should be closed to public observation pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B). In accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act and BBG policies, the meeting will be recorded and a transcript of the proceedings, subject to the redaction of information protected by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), will be made available to the public. The publicly-releasable transcript will be available for download at                         *www.bbg.gov*                         within 21 days of the date of the meeting.                    

Information regarding member votes to close the meeting and expected attendees can also be found on the Agency's public Web site.

# Contact Person for More Information:

Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Oanh Tran at (202) 203-4545.

Oanh Tran,  

Director of Board Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2014-25841 Filed 10-27-14; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
Exhibit 13.1

                    PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with this Annual Report of CalPetro Tankers (Bahamas I) Limited
(the "Company") on Form 20-F for the annual period ended December 31, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tor Olav Troim, the Principal Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date:  June 26, 2007

/s/ Tor Olav Troim
------------------
    Tor Olav Troim
    Principal Executive Officer
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________

RICHARD REBSTOCK , Claimant

- Appellant ,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SE CRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

__________________________ 201 2- 7169

__________________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 12

- 1171, Judge Robert N. Davis

.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________ O R D E R
Richard Rebstock submits a “motion to pr oceed” and a “motion to affirm petition.” The government responds to the motion to affirm.
To the extent that his motions seek immediate co nsideration of his case , Rebstock’s appeal is under consi deration by the court and a dispos i tion will issue in due Case: 12-7169 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 03/13/2013RICHARD REBSTOCK v. SHINSEKI 2

c ourse . Thus no motion is nece s sary. To the extent Rebstock is arguing the merits of his case, those arg uments belong in his brief , not motions. Nonetheless, the court will construe the motion to affirm as a request for supplemental briefing. Upon consi deration thereof , IT IS ORDERED THAT : (1) Rebstock’s motions are denied. (2) The motion to affirm is deemed supplemental briefing. Copies shall be transmitted to the merits panel
as signed to the case.
F OR T HE C OURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk

s2 3 Case: 12-7169 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 03/13/2013
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE  PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Tor Olav Troim, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this annual  report on Form 20-F of CalPetro  Tankers (IOM)
Limited;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  report  does not  contain  any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made,  not  misleading  with  respect to the period  covered by this annual
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  report,  fairly  present in all  material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions  about the  effectiveness  of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual
report whether or not there were significant  changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls  subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


/s/ Tor Olav Troim
----------------------------
Tor Olav Troim
President
(Chief Executive Officer)

Date:  June 30, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 677 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 677

To amend the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 to provide that no 
     funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 1997

Mr. Frelinghuysen (for himself, Mr. Bass, and Mr. Franks of New Jersey) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 to provide that no 
     funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out that Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 27 of the 
Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831z) is amended to 
read as follows:
    ``Sec. 27. No appropriations are authorized to carry out the 
provisions of this Act after September 30, 1997.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32(a)

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 United Rentals, Inc. and United Rentals (North America),
Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report). I, Wayland R. Hicks, Chief Executive Officer of the Companies, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/    WAYLAND R. HICKSWayland R. Hicks Chief Executive Officer


April 12, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Companies and will be retained by the Companies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or it staff upon request.
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

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

ASAD EHTISHAM, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EXPERIAN INFORMATION 

SOLUTIONS, INC., an Ohio corporation, 

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, 

LLC, a Georgia corporation, 

TRANS UNION LLC, a Delaware limited 

liability company; 

ADVANCE AUDIO, INC., a Kansas 

company, 

CCM ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Kansas 

company, and 

PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, 

a Georgia Corporation, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: CV-15-2362-PHX-JAT 

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT 

TRANS UNION LLC, ONLY, WITH 

PREJUDICE 

The Court, having considered Plaintiff Asad Ehtisham and Defendant Trans Union 

LLC’s Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 61), and for good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice as to 

Defendant Trans Union LLC, only, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and 

costs. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:15-cv-02362-JAT Document 62 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 2
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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is the last remaining Defendant, the 

Clerk of the Court shall close this case. 

Dated this 6th day of June, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-02362-JAT Document 62 Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 210 (Thursday, October 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 64645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25826]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #14165 and #14166]


Hawaii Disaster #HI-00032

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of Hawaii dated 10/22/2014.
    Incident: Tropical Storm Iselle.
    Incident Period: 08/07/2014 through 08/09/2014.
    Effective Date: 10/22/2014.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/22/2014.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/22/2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Hawaii.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Credit Available Elsewhere.................................      4.125
  Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      2.063
  Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere.................      6.000
  Businesses Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      4.000
  Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere...      2.625
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.625
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit      4.000
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.625
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 141658 
and for economic injury is 141660.
    The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Hawaii.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

    Dated: October 22, 2014._
Maria Contreras-Sweet,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-25826 Filed 10-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P