alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashdown Marks Success of First NASA Commercial Crew Flight Test","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"MIeEv6xxIq\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/spacex-crew-dragon-splashdown-marks-success-of-first-nasa-commercial-crew-flight-test\/\">SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashdown Marks Success of First NASA Commercial Crew Flight Test<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/spacex-crew-dragon-splashdown-marks-success-of-first-nasa-commercial-crew-flight-test\/embed\/#?secret=MIeEv6xxIq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashdown Marks Success of First NASA Commercial Crew Flight Test” — NASA\" data-secret=\"MIeEv6xxIq\" 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\/2019\/03\/dm1-splashdown.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":184}
#### UNITED STATES ex rel. ZELLER v. WATKINS, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization.

District Court, S. D. New York.

June 11, 1947.

See also, D.C., 72 F.Stipp. 980.

Gunther Jacobson, of New York City, for relator.

John F. X. McGohey, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Harold J. Raby, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

GODDARD, District Judge.

In this proceeding the relator seeks his discharge from detention at Ellis Island where he is held as an enemy alien pursuant to Title 50 U. S. C.A. § 21, and the Proclamation of the President of the United States No. 2526 [6 Fed. Reg. 6323] dated December 8, 1941.

In substance the petition and travers allege that the relator was horn in Danzig on December 26, 1914; that by the Versailles Treaty, dated June 28, 1919, Danzig became a Free City with a constitution of its own and was placed under the protection of the League of Nations; that the relator entered this country in 1936 on a Danzig passport and that he is not and never was a native, citizen, subject or denizen of Germany and that he never did reside in Germany or became naturalized in Germany.

The Government’s return to the writ alleges that, the relator is a native, citizen, denizen or subject of Germany.

It therefor appears that the petition, return and travers raise questions of fact which should be determined at a plenary hearing with proof. Walker v. Johnston, 312 U. S. 275, 61 S.Ct. 574, 85 L.Ed. 830; United States ex rel. Schwarzkopf v. Uhl, 2 Cir., 137 F.2d 898.

If it be established upon the hearing that the relator is either a citizen, denizen or subject of Germany, the question of his nativity would become immaterial. United States ex rel. Reichel v. Carusi, 3 Cir., 157 F.2d 732, certiorari denied 330 U.S. 842, 67 S.Ct. 1081.

The relator will be grantt d a plenary hearing for the purpose of passing upon these controverted allegations.

Settle order on notice.
NUMBER 13-14-00297-CR

COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

ALEJANDRO BARRIENTES, Appellant, 

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 107th District Court 

of Cameron County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Alejandro Barrientes, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from 

his conviction in trial court cause number 2013-DCR-657-A. The trial court's certification 

of the defendant's right to appeal shows that the defendant does not have the right to 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
2

On May 27, 2014, we ordered appellant's counsel, the Hon. Larry Warner, to,

within thirty days, review the record and advise this Court as to whether appellant has a

right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3, 44.4. Following an abatement hearing, 

appellant’s counsel has filed a response recommending that we determine that

appellant’s waiver of the right to appeal was ineffective because it was not 

supported by consideration. The State has not filed a response to the 

recommendation. Accordingly, this case is hereby REINSTATED.

A defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal is only valid if it is made voluntarily, 

knowingly, and intelligently. Ex parte Broadway, 301 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2009). In Ex parte Delaney, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that a 

defendant who pleaded guilty without an agreed recommended sentence, waived his 

right to appeal, and waived his right to a jury trial, did not voluntarily, knowingly, and 

intelligently wave his right to appeal because the consequences of the waiver could 

not be known with certainty. 207 S.W.3d 794, 799 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). In this 

case, appellant pleaded guilty without an agreed recommended sentence, waived 

his right to appeal, and waived his right to a jury trial. Furthermore, appellant’s 

waiver was not the result of a bargain for which appellant received consideration. 

See Ex parte Broadway, 301 S.W.3d at 697–98 (upholding the waiver of the right of 

appeal because the defendant received consideration in return for the waiver: the 

State agreed to accept his waiver of the right to a jury trial so that the trial judge 

would have the option to consider sentencing the defendant to deferred-adjudication 

community supervision with drug treatment). Because appellant waived his right to 

appeal when the consequences of the waiver could not be known with certainty and 

appellant received no consideration as a result of the waiver, we conclude that the 
3

waiver was ineffective and appellant has the right to appeal. See Ex parte Delaney, 

207 S.W.3d at 799. Appellant’s brief is due thirty days from the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

12th day of December, 2014.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MARCUS BARNES, et al., ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 20-cv-2137

) 

ROB JEFFREYS, in his official ) Hon. Virginia M. Kendall

capacity as the Director of the Illinois ) 

Department of Corrections, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF JERRAND MILLER AND ANDRA SAMPSON’S 

MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

Jerrand Miller, R60718, and Andra Sampson, R70879, are members of the 

certified class who have completed their sentences of imprisonment and have been 

released from the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) to 

serve their Mandatory Supervised Release time in the community. To remain at

liberty in the community, they must reside at a host site that has been approved by 

the IDOC. 

The address 601 10th St., North Chicago, Illinois 60064, would otherwise be 

approved by IDOC, but for the “One Person Per Address” provision in 730 ILCS 5/3-

3-7(a)(7.6). This Court has already determined that it is unconstitutional to

imprison sex offenders after their period of incarceration has been completed solely 

because they are unable to find suitable host sites. See Murphy v. Raoul, 380 F.

Supp. 3d 781 (N.D. Ill. 2019).

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 88 Filed: 03/12/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:599
2

There has been no legitimate public interest articulated in only having one sex 

offender live at an address. Therefore, the Court finds that 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(a)(7.6)

is unconstitutional as it applies to Jerrand Miller and Andra Sampson, and 

Defendant is enjoined from enforcing the “One Person Per Address” provision in 730 

ILCS 5/3-3- 7(a)(7.6) as to these individuals to the extent they seek to reside at 601 

10th St. in North Chicago. 

___________________________ _March 12, 2021_ 

Hon. Virginia M. Kendall, Date

Judge Presiding

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 88 Filed: 03/12/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:600
* 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. 98-31058

Summary Calendar

 

ELI J. GUILLORY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana

State Penitentiary,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-2342

- - - - - - - - - -

March 30, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eli J. Guillory, Louisiana state prisoner #89473, moves for

leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP). Although we initially

granted Guillory leave to file his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254

application in district court, we have since held that his claim

of an unconstitutional jury instruction on reasonable doubt does

not meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A). See in

re Smith, 142 F.3d 832, 834-36 (5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the

appeal is DISMISSED. Guillory’s IFP motion is DENIED as moot.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 64766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25943]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9017-7]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 10/20/2014 
Through 10/24/2014 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20140310, Final Supplement, USFWS, CA, Coachella Valley 
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, Major Amendment, Review 
Period Ends: 12/01/2014, Contact: Dan Cox 916-414-6539
EIS No. 20140311, Draft EIS, BLM, Multi, Southeastern States Draft 
Resource Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 01/29/2015, Contact: 
Gary Taylor 601-977-5413
EIS No. 20140312, Final EIS, FERC, NY, Constitution Pipeline and Wright 
Interconnect Projects, Review Period Ends: 12/01/2014, Contact: Kevin 
Bowman 202-502-6287
EIS No. 20140313, Draft EIS, USA, CO, Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) 
Training and Operations, Comment Period Ends: 12/15/2014, Contact: 
Debra Benford 719-526-4666

    Dated: October 28, 2014.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-25943 Filed 10-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### State of Indiana ex rel. Roger Drollinger *v.*Thomas K. Milligan, Judge of the Montgomery Circuit Court and the Montgomery Circuit Court.

[No. 1-775A119.

Filed August 20, 1975.

Rehearing denied August 27, 1975.

Transfer denied December 5, 1975.]

*Nile Stanton, Elberger & Stanton,*of Indianapolis, for appellant.

*Judge Thomas K. Milligan,*of Crawfordsville, *Conrad G. Harvey,*Montgomery County Prosecutor, of Crawfordsville, for appellee.

*436Robertson, C.J.

Petitioner Drollinger seeks a writ of

mandate requiring the respondent trial court to set bail pending an appellate review of revocation of his probation.

Drollinger, initially charged with statutory rape, entered a plea of guilty to assault and battery with intent to gratify sexual desires. He was accordingly sentenced to one to five years and placed on probation. Approximately eight months later Drollinger was convicted of the misdemeanor of unauthorized possession of a firearm and sentenced to six months. Upon proper notice the trial court set Drollinger’s appeal bond at $10,000 on the latter offense.

Subsequently, the State filed a petition to revoke Drollinger’s probation because of the misdemeanor conviction. The trial court revoked Drollinger’s probation after a hearing on the State’s petition.

Drollinger’s counsel immediately gave oral notice (later reduced to writing and filed with the trial court) to the State and the trial court that the probation revocation would be appealed. He also moved for the setting of an appeal bond which the trial court refused to do.

Drollinger then filed with this court a verified petition for a writ of mandate to require the setting of bond pending appeal of the revocation of probation. We decline to issue the writ.

Drollinger incorrectly asserts a constitutional right to bail pending appeal. *See Scruggs*v. *State*(1974), 161 Ind. App. 672, 317 N.E.2d 800; *In re Pisello*(1973), 155 Ind. App. 484, 293 N.E.2d 228. Moreover, reliance upon IC 1971, 35-4-6-1 and 35-4-6-4 (Burns Code Ed.) is misplaced for those statutes deal with appeal bonds subsequent to a conviction, not revocation of probation.

We have not been directed to any authority, nor could we locate any on our own, which would compel the issuance of a writ of mandate to require the setting of bail from the appeal of a revocation of probation.

Accordingly, the petition fqr a writ of mandate is denied.

*437Lowdermilk and Lybrook, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported at 332 N.E.2d 799.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Sandra May","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/sandra-b-maynasa-gov\/","title":"Bringing Women and Girls into STEM With NASA Opportunities","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"9mMSyzws5l\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/learning-resources\/bringing-women-and-girls-into-stem-with-nasa-opportunities\/\">Bringing Women and Girls into STEM With NASA Opportunities<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/learning-resources\/bringing-women-and-girls-into-stem-with-nasa-opportunities\/embed\/#?secret=9mMSyzws5l\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Bringing Women and Girls into STEM With NASA Opportunities” — NASA\" data-secret=\"9mMSyzws5l\" 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\/img_6678.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
EXHIBIT 31

CERTIFICATION

Re: Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC Trust 2004-NC1 (the "Trust"),
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-NC1, issued pursuant to
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as April 1, 2004 (the
"Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), by and among Securitized Asset
Backed Receivables LLC, as depositor (the "Depositor"), Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company, as trustee (the "Trustee"), The Provident Bank,
as servicer (the "Servicer"), and NC Capital Corporation, as responsible
party

I, Paul Menefee, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K (the "Annual Report"),
and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution reports (collectively
with this Annual Report,the "Reports") filed in respect of periods included
 in the year covered by this Annual Report, ofthe Trust;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in the Reports, taken as a whole,
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 as of
the last day of the period covered by this Annual Report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required
to be provided to the Trustee by the Servicer under the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement, for inclusion in the Reports is included in the Reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement
included in this Annual Report and required to be delivered to the Trustee
 in accordance with the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, and
except as disclosed in the Reports, the Servicer has fulfilled its
obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement; and

5. The Reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the Servicer's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided
by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in
compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
or similar procedure, as set forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
 that is included in such report.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: the Trustee and the
Servicer.

Date: March 31, 2005

/s/  Paul Menefee
Paul Menefee
Chief Accounting Officer
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 

Michael McNeill, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NPAS Incorporated, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-16-08018-PCT-SRB

ORDER 

Pursuant To Stipulation, 

 IT IS ORDERED that all claims against Defendant NPAS Incorporated 

(“NPAS”) are dismissed with prejudice. Each party shall bear his or its own 

attorneys’ fees and costs included herein.

 Dated this 29th day of June, 2016. 

Case 3:16-cv-08018-SRB Document 27 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries



|                                                |  |                              
|----------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Name                                            |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|McCormick & Schmick Acquisition Corp. II        |  | Delaware                     
|                                                | 
|McCormick & Schmick Acquisition Corp.           |  | Delaware                     
|                                                | 
|McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp.            |  | Delaware                     
|                                                | 
|McCormick & Schmick Maryland Liquor, Inc.       |  | Maryland                     
|                                                | 
|McCormick & Schmick Acquisition I Texas, Inc.   |  | Texas                        
|                                                | 
|McCormick & Schmick Acquisition II Texas, Inc.  |  | Delaware                     
|                                                | 
|McCormick & Schmick Acquisition Texas, LP       |  | Texas                        
|                                                | 
|McCormick & Schmick Acquisition III Texas, Inc. |  | Texas                        
|                                                | 
|McCormick & Schmicks Hackensack, LLC           |  | Delaware                     
|                                                | 
|McCormick & Schmicks Atlanta II, LLC           |  | Delaware                     
|                                                | 
|McCormick & Schmick Orlando, LLC                |  | Delaware                     
|                                                | 
|McCormick & Schmick Dallas, LP                  |  | Texas                        
|                                                | 
|McCormick & Schmick Dallas Liquor, Inc.         |  | Texas                        
|                                                | 
|McCormick & Schmick Austin, LP                  |  | Texas                        
|                                                | 
|McCormick & Schmick Austin Liquor, Inc.         |  | Texas
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel are you 

a Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this &ourt an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this &ourt’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 8.6.&§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on 

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

Case: 1:20-cv-02350 Document #: 22 Filed: 05/11/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:91