alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 247 (Rev. 11/11) ALSD Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

United States of America

)

)

)

)

)

)

v.

Case No:

USM No:

Date of Original Judgment:

Date of Previous Amended Judgment:

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of ’ the defendant ’ the Director of the Bureau of Prisons ’ the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion, and taking into account the policy statement set forth at USSG §1B1.10

and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

’ DENIED. ’ GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of months is reduced to .

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Except as otherwise provided, all provisions of the judgment dated shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date:

Judge’s signature

Effective Date:

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama Jollan Johnson

09-00200 10782-003 March 1, 2011 December 7, 2011 Pro Se ✔

✔

May 24, 2013 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade United States District Judge

The defendant has already received the benefits of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, as he was originally sentenced in 

February 2011 after the Act became applicable. At sentencing, the amended guidelines were applied.

Case 1:09-cr-00200-CG-C Document 46 Filed 05/24/13 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HARDY DEVAN TOLBERT, JR., :

AIS 160902,

:

Petitioner,

:

vs. CA 14-0407-WS-C

:

KARLA JONES,

:

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to 

the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation 

to which objection is made, the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 

made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated January 21, 2015, is ADOPTED as the 

opinion of this Court.

DONE this 13th day of February, 2015.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00407-WS-C Document 15 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramon Diaz, Appellant.

[966 NYS2d 677]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated December 5, 1994 *(People v Diaz,*18 AD3d 573 [2005]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered October 22, 1991.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM RESORTS
INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC.'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO
INCLUDED IN THE FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         $39,072<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   $8,936
<ALLOWANCES>                                    $3,319
<INVENTORY>                                     $2,064
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               $53,482
<PP&E>                                        $222,931
<DEPRECIATION>                                 $69,841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                $222,489
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          $29,407
<BONDS>                                       $128,292<F2>
<COMMON>                                        $1,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     $45,080
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  $222,489
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              $217,403
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 $162,893<F3>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                $9,276<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             $13,587
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   $404
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               $404
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      $404
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES NON-RESTRICTED CASH EQUIVALENTS OF $25,251 AND
    RESTRICTED CASH EQUIVALENTS OF $750.
<F2>NET OF UNAMORTIZED DISCOUNTS.
<F3>EXCLUDES DEPRECIATION EXPENSE.
<F4>DEPRECIATION EXPENSE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
12189.

#### Neal *v.*The State.

Bt.oodwobth, J.

1. The charge of which complaint is made in ground 1 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial contains an abstractly oorrect principle of law, and “ a charge which is abstractly correct is not rendered erroneous by a failure to charge some other legal principle applicable to the case.” *Gunn*v. *State,*23 *Ga. App.*545(3) (99 S. E. 62), and cases cited; *Atlanta & West Point R. Co.*v. *Miller,*23 *Ga. App.*347(3) (98 S. E. 248), and cases cited.

2. “ In the absence of a timely and appropriate written request, the court did not err in failing to charge the jury specifically that the burden was on the State to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge of the court on the subject of a reasonable doubt *648sufficiently informed the jury that that burden was on the State. *Thomas*v. *State,*129 *Ga.*419(4), (59 S. E. 246).” *Finch*v. *State,*24 *Ga. App.*339(2) (100 S. E. 793). This disposes of the second ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

Decided April 13, 1921.

Indictment for burglary; from Bibb superior court — Judge Mathews. January 5, 1921.

*B. J. Fowler, John B. Cooper,*W. *O. Cooper Jr.,*for plaintiff in error. *Charles E. Garrett, solicitor-general,*contra.

3. There was ample evidence to support the finding of the jury, which has the approval of the trial judge, and the judgment is

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
12170.

#### Dean *v.*The State.

Decided April 13, 1921.

Conviction of manslaughter; from Wheeler superior court — Judge E. D. Graham. December 27, 1920.

*Hamilton Burch, M. H. Boyer, D. D. Smith, J. H. Roberts,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. A. Wooten, solicitor-general pro tern.,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

1. This court cannot say that the trial judge erred in overruling those grounds of the motion for a new trial which relate to alleged newly discovered evidence, since the record contains no affidavit of the movant and his counsel that they did not know of the existence of such evidence before the trial, and that the same could not have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary diligence. Civil Code (1910), § 6086.

2. The court did not err in admitting, over the objection of the defendant’s counsel, the evidence set forth in ground 5 of the amendment to the motion fot a new trial.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID LAUSELL, JR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 812 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14th day of May, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Example data:

393216:EW/eKCo9QgoHfHYebwoyC0QStQYEb+G8j3wfVOglnimQyCK+mteYREDWXKF2b:MKg3lbwoyCnCkNHlnimfCSQx8b,"000/000/000000001"
196608:AGSE26mYSK0iwH8HW9TDl0vnvCZwZEkzzeap7R:Ak28siwH8eRSn25k3eg,"000/000/000000002"
98304:O1OCzezOgr4XMP7Af0+Kh7MzplFKuu5XcS9QnCD/VWR6yf4OB6S/mwRTwjf0ih87:k/Y4XMT7YguEXqCD/VWR6yf4Ux/mwR0S,"000/000/000000003"
96:ukILJhn54RewghSib4xGEHVLFNs+4tihJW6jJenUQrsIvpMMjUg:uk0Jx54usxJHh4gJrJenUQrs2pvIg,"000/000/000000004"
196608:rNI4QlKQbWQobu0u3QRBBibfv+Z4Hjy5M+IjunAadLLtt42fAtQSqFhx:rNkK2obu0uBb3K4H28yAGc4RSax,"000/000/000000005"
1536:mFbhArcCMbR0S/kjzU6El4mUIR2JPmvY3lpKa38fTXcTns+b3tfZyCLtRs:obNCMbWpU6SzFAPV3lpCjCsQRZyQt6,"000/000/000000006"
48:CScrEd3jk5BsRSFCWfVsEWABbbpnWSgSX45dc6b5Qla9A+o5R6k7CyNRD5J:XcrEdzHRSFr9sE7XnsDe1CyNRNJ,"000/000/000000007"
24:N8Rw5AF4REesFtPP6k216xoWya1oxOKHHwa8peRK8FdigZY5tODrRRK8RfMfde8:N8Rw5AF4+XPyooa2EKnwaGeRJFYpfwzQ,"000/000/000000008"
1536:yB+A8bMtMeRlbIzvDqZL4QzNxVDm+5gt+M2hDDDvNZ3YZ7sU:N4tMsbOGcyrV6BQvnoZ4U,"000/000/000000009"
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CARI D. SEARCY, et al. )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0208-CG-N

)

LUTHER STRANGE, III, in his 

official capacity as the Attorney 

General of the State of Alabama,

)

)

)

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

In accordance with the Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation 

(Doc. 40), the Plaintiffs’ claims against defendants Robert Bentley, Catherine M. 

Donald, and Nancy T. Buckner in their individual and official capacities are 

DISMISSED with prejudice, and the Plaintiffs’ claims against Luther Strange, 

III, in his individual capacity are DISMISSED with prejudice.

The parties are directed to use the style as set forth above in all future

pleadings.1

DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of August, 2014.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 Defendant Don Davis was dismissed with prejudice as of July 25, 2014 pursuant to this 

court’s Order issued on July 18, 2014 (Doc. 31).

Case 1:14-cv-00208-CG-N Document 42 Filed 08/28/14 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, James W. Bernau, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Willamette Valley
Vineyards, Incorporated;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the small
business issuer and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: December 6, 2004
/s/ James W. Bernau
    James W. Bernau,
    Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

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


     In  connection  with the  accompanying  Annual  Report on Form  10-K/A-2 of
Paragon Financial Corporation (kna New Market Latin America,  Inc.) for the year
ended December 31, 2004, I, Aubrey Brown,  President and Chief Executive Officer
of Paragon Financial  Corporation (kna New Market Latin America,  Inc.),  hereby
certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

a)   such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A-2 of Paragon  Financial  Corporation (kna
     New Market Latin America, Inc.) for the year ended December 31, 2004, fully
     complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
     Exchange Act of 1934; and

b)   the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A-2 of Paragon
     Financial  Corporation  (kna New Market Latin  America,  Inc.) for the year
     ended December 31, 2004,  fairly presents,  in all material  respects,  the
     financial   condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Paragon  Financial
     Corporation (kna New Market Latin America, Inc.)





                            /s/ Aubrey Brown
                                ----------------
                                Aubrey Brown, Chief Executive Officer,
                                President

Date:    October 7, 2008



A        signed original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
         been  provided to The Saint  James  Company and will be retained by The
         Saint James  Company  and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange
         Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DANIEL JOSEPH PREZIOSI,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 60 MM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of June

, 2017, the Application to File Allowance of

Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED

.
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Peter A. Forman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Register.com, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being
     prepared;

     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
     fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
     materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
     likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
     summarize and report financial information; and

     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting.

Date: March 11, 2004                   By: /s/ Peter A. Forman
                                           -------------------
                                           Peter A.  Forman
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY O’NEAL CROOMES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0509-CG-N

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

)

)

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having 

been no objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated April 10, 2015, is ADOPTED as the opinion of 

this Court.

DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of May, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00509-CG-N Document 15 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 1
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

DORIAN E. RAMIREZ NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS C HRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

December 30, 2014

Ms. Lynda F. Bentley

5515 LOUETTA RD., SUITE C

Houston, TX 77379

Hon. Matthew J. Kita

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 5119

Dallas, TX 75208

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL * Hon. Mark Aronowitz

P. O. Box 1201

Texas City, TX 77592

* DELIVERE D VIA E

- MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13

- 12

- 00303

- CV

Tr.Ct.No. 11

- 01

- 00804

- CV

Style: JOHN RUSSELL COFFMAN v. CELESTE ELANE COFFMAN

Dear Attorneys :

Enclosed please find the opinion and judgment issued by the Court on this date.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ram irez, Clerk

DER: ch

Enc.

cc: Hon. Stuart A. Hughes (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)

359 th District Court (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)

Hon. Barbara Gladden Adamick , Montgomery County District Clerk

(DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)

H on. Olen Underwood , Presiding Judge, Second Administrative Judicial Region

(DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)
NUMBER 13-09-00003-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

CLYDE NUBINE, Appellant,

v.

KAREN M. STROLENY, ET AL., Appellees. 

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez, and Justices Yañez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Clyde Nubine, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered

by the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas, in cause number B-08-1345-CV-B.

Judgment in this cause was signed on November 10, 2008. Pursuant to Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant’s notice of appeal was due on December 10, 2008,

but was not filed until January 5, 2009. 
2

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in

good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1, but within the

fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See

Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18, 619 (1997) (construing the predecessor to

Rule 26). However, appellant must provide a reasonable explanation for the late filing: it

is not enough to simply file a notice of appeal. Id.; Woodard v. Higgins, 140 S.W.3d 462,

462 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565, 567 (Tex. App.–Waco

2002, no pet.).

On January 6, 2009, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that

steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that,

if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter,

the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant filed a response, however, it does not establish

that the notice of appeal and a motion requesting an extension of time was filed within the

fifteen-day grace period. 

 The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, and

appellant’s failure to timely perfect his appeal, is of the opinion that the appeal should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a)(c).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 26th day of February, 2009.