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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 20 CR 330

)

DENNIS GERMAN, )

) Judge Matthew F. Kennelly

Defendant. )

 

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW

Counsel for the defendant, attorney Steven Greenberg, seeks leave to withdraw in this 

matter. In support, he states the following:

1. Attorney Greenberg was retained as counsel for Mr. German when Mr. 

German was first charged in state court. Counsel continued to represent Mr. 

German when he was indicted federally for most of the same charges.

2. A fundamental difference of opinion exists between counsel and Mr. German 

that makes continued representation impossible. The differences have been 

discussed with Mr. German and they remain.

3. At this point counsel does not believe that he can continue to represent Mr.

German, and accordingly counsel seeks to withdraw.

4. A copy of this Motion has been mailed to Mr. German at the Jerome Combs 

Detention Center.

Case: 1:20-cr-00330 Document #: 198 Filed: 10/13/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1337
2

WHEREFORE, counsel respectfully requests that he be allowed to withdraw.

Respectfully submitted, 

Dennis German, Defendant 

 

By: /s/ Steve Greenberg 

 One of Defendant’s Attorneys 

Steven A. Greenberg 

Greenberg Trial Lawyers 

53 W. Jackson, Suite 1260 

Chicago IL, 60604 

312-879-9500 

Steve@GreenbergCD.com 

Case: 1:20-cr-00330 Document #: 198 Filed: 10/13/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1338
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          (1,670)
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       4,010,193
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                              0
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,936,644
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                    22,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             18,215
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       512,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,608,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                       0
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      0
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                     0
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,888
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          (15,888)
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                115,090
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (130,978)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (130,978)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (130,978)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.26)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00312

- CR

LINDSI K. HUDNALL APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT CO URT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered the “ Motion To Dismiss Appeal ” filed by appellant

Lindsi K. Hudnall , pro se. The motion is signed by appellant. See Tex. R. App.

P. 42.2(a) (requiring signature of appellant and attorney on motion to dismiss). 2

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 Further, the trial court’s certification states that this “is a plea

- bargain

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d),

43.2(f).2

No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this motion,

we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 9 , 2012
2012 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

5-25-2012 

# I n R e: Kit Lee

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 12-2170

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2012 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n R e: Kit L e e " (2012). 2012 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 934. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012/934

### 1

DLD

- 182 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 2

- 2170

___________ IN RE: KIT B. LEE ,

Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to 09

- cv - 05720 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

May 17, 2012 Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : May 25, 2012 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM
I n November 2009, the petitioner, Kit Lee , filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Sunrise Seni or Living, Inc. , alleging employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Lee also asserted a state

- law defamation claim

. The District Court subsequently dismissed the co mplaint due to Lee’s failure to

### 2

com ply with several discovery orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Upon review, t his Court affirmed. Lee v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. , 455 F. App’x 199 (3d Cir. 2011). Lee now seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the Dis trict Court to rule on the merits of her complaint. Lee contends that our previous order affirming the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint created a “judicial stalemate,” and argues that we are obligated to “fix the stalemate” by ordering the lowe r court to reopen proceedings. Lee evidently misunderstands the judicial process; as noted above, the District Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Rule 37, and this Court affirmed. There is no “stalemate.” Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.
### The Honorab le Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge 1 

### fo r the District of Minnesota, adopting the report an d recomm endationof the Honorable John M. Mason, United State s Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 95-3972

___________ Danny D. Goodroad, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Lynn Delano, Commissioner of * District of Minnesota. Corrections; Les Hawkey, * Minnehaha County Sheriff; * [UNPUBLISHED] Hubert H. Humphrey, III, * Minnesota Attorney General, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: October 25, 1996 Filed: November 29, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. The Distr ict Court dismissed Danny D. Goodroad's 28 U.S.C. § 225 4 1 petition, on the ground that Goodroad was not "in custody" within th e meaning of § 2254 at the time he filed his petit ion. Goodroad appeals the dismissal order. Havingconsidered the case, we conclude that the District Court' s dismissal of Goodroad's petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was correct. No error of law appears, and an opinion

### -2-

by this Court would add nothing new to the exist ing body of law on the "in cus tody" requirement. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Distric t Court without further discussion.
AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3956

To designate Poland as a program country under the visa waiver program 

established under section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2004

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (for herself and Mr. SHIMKUS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To designate Poland as a program country under the visa 

waiver program established under section 217 of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 The Congress makes the following findings: 

5 (1) Since the founding of the United States, 

6 Poland has proven its steadfast dedication to the 

7 causes of freedom and friendship with the United 

8 States, exemplified by the brave actions of Polish pa9 triots such as Casimir Pulaski and Tadeusz 

10 Kosciuszko during the American Revolution. 
2

•HR 3956 IH 

1 (2) Polish history provides pioneering examples 

2 of constitutional democracy and religious tolerance. 

3 (3) The United States is home to nearly 

4 9,000,000 people of Polish ancestry. 

5 (4) Polish immigrants have contributed greatly 

6 to the success of industry and agriculture in the 

7 United States. 

8 (5) Since the demise of communism, Poland has 

9 become a stable, democratic nation. 

10 (6) Poland has adopted economic policies that 

11 promote free markets and rapid economic growth. 

12 (7) On March 12, 1999, Poland demonstrated 

13 its commitment to global security by becoming a 

14 member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 

15 (8) On May 1, 2004, Poland will become a 

16 member State of the European Union. 

17 (9) Poland was a staunch ally to the United 

18 States during Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

19 (10) Poland has committed 2,300 soldiers to 

20 help with ongoing peacekeeping efforts in Iraq. 

21 (11) The Secretary of Homeland Security and 

22 Secretary of State administer the visa waiver pro23 gram, which allows citizens from 27 countries, in24 cluding France and Germany, to visit the United 

25 States as tourists without visas. 
3

•HR 3956 IH 

1 (12) On April 15, 1991, Poland unilaterally re2 pealed the visa requirement for United States citi3 zens traveling to Poland for 90 days or less. 

4 (13) More than 100,000 Polish citizens visit the 

5 United States each year. 

6 SEC. 2. RENDERING POLAND VISA WAIVER PROGRAM 

7 COUNTRY. 

8 Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, 

9 and notwithstanding section 217(c) of the Immigration 

10 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(c)), Poland shall be 

11 deemed a designated program country for purposes of the 

12 visa waiver program established under section 217 of such 

13 Act.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DOUGLAS BURTON LEUSCHEN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 412 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of May, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40671

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERTO ALMAZAN-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:12-CR-1902-2

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Roberto Almazan-Rodriguez has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Almazan-Rodriguez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 3, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-40671 Document: 00513065309 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2015
No. 14-40671

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-40671 Document: 00513065309 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2015
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

________________________ No. ACM 40253

________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Kevin E. HERNANDEZ Airman (E

- 2 ) , U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________ Appeal from the United S tates Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 28 Feb ruary 202 3

________________________ Military Judge: Christina M. Jimenez

. S entence: Sentence adjudged 9 November 20 21 by G CM convened at Hill Air Force Base, Utah . Sentence entered by military judge on 9 December 202 1 : Bad

- cond uct discharge, confinement for 3 months , and reduction to E

- 1. For Appellant: Major Theresa L. Hilton , USAF

. Before KEY , ANNEXSTAD, and GRUEN , Appellate Military Judges

.

_ _______________________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA R ule of Practice and Procedure 30 .4.

________________________ PER CURIAM : The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and noerror materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d)

. Manual for Courts

Martial, United States (2019 ed.).United States v. Hernandez , No. ACM 40253

2 Accordingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3855 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3855

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 607 Pershing Drive in Laclede, Missouri, as the ``General John J. 
                        Pershing Post Office''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3855

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 607 Pershing Drive in Laclede, Missouri, as the ``General John J. 
                        Pershing Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 607 
Pershing Drive in Laclede, Missouri, shall be known and designated as 
the ``General John J. Pershing Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``General John J. Pershing 
Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 20, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
|Exhibit 32.1
|------------

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 Mercari Communications Group, Ltd. on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L. Michael Underwood, President/Chief 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

|(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 result of operations of the Company.
|   



|/s/ L. Michael UnderwoodL. Michael UnderwoodPresident(Principal Executive Officer)
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|October 12, 2007
|----------------

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 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.

---
Exhibit 4 - CDMC Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-3

                                   CERTIFICATION

I,  Joseph E. Suter, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
     8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
     periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of the trust
     (the "Trust") created pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
     dated May 1, 2004 (the "Agreement") among PHH Mortgage Capital LLC
     (formerly Cendant Mortgage Capital LLC) (the "Depositor"), PHH Mortgage
     Corporation (formerly known as Cendant Mortgage Corporation) (the "Master
     Servicer") and Citibank, N.A. (the "Trustee");

2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in these 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 mis-
     leading 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 Master Servicer under the
     Agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Master
     Servicer under the Agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual
     compliance review required under the Agreement, and except as disclosed
     in the reports, the Master Servicer has fulfilled its obligations under
     the Agreement; and

5.   The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the Master
     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 as set forth in the Agreement, that is included in these
     reports.

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

Date:  March 28, 2005
       --------------

By:       /s/ Joseph E. Suter
          --------------------------
Name:     Joseph E. Suter
Title:    President and Chief Executive Officer
Company:  PHH Mortgage Corporation(formerly known as Cendant Mortgage
          Corporation)
9610.

#### Varn *et al. v.*Breen.

Decided October 16, 1918.

Complaint; from city court of Savannah—Judge Freeman. March 4, 1918. .

*Saussy & Saussy,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Edwards & Lester, W. B. Gibbs,*contra.

Lüke, J.

1. There is no merit in the assignments of error upon excerpts from the charge of the court. The charge of the court has been carefully examined, and, when considered as a whole, it was full and fair, and presented the issues of the case.

2. The evidence was conflicting, but was sufficient to authorize the Verdict, which has the approval of the! trial judge. None of the grounds of the motion for a new trial are sufficient to require a reversal of the judgment overruling the motion.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, O. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*