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

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Crim. No. 10-854(FSH)

v. :

ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ : REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

 

This matter having come before the Court by way of referral from the Hon. Faith S.

Hochberg to conduct a proceeding pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and to issue a report and

recommendation regarding the defendant’s entry of a guilty plea; and the Court having

considered the written consent by the defendant and defense counsel to have the proceeding

before the Undersigned; and the Undersigned having conducted a proceeding pursuant to Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11; and as more fully set forth and reflected in the transcript of proceedings dated April

7, 2011, the Court makes the following report:

1. The defendant consented to the entry of a guilty plea before a United States Magistrate

Judge, subject to the defendant’s ability to file any written objections to the findings and

recommendations contained in this report and orally stated at the Rule 11 proceeding and subject

to its adoption by the United States District Judge;

2. The defendant fully understood the oath and consequences of failing to tell the truth at

the plea hearing;

3. The defendant fully understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of the

guilty plea, including the maximum penalties that the defendant faces;

4. The defendant fully understood that while the United States Sentencing Guidelines

are not binding, they will be considered;

5. The defendant fully understood the right to plead “not guilty” and to be tried by a jury,

Case 2:10-cr-00854-MCA Document 44 Filed 04/07/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 118
with the assistance of counsel, and that the defendant would have the right to confront and crossexamine witnesses, call witnesses and compel the production of evidence if the defendant so

chose, and to remain silent or testify, if the defendant so chose;

6. The defendant fully understood that if the guilty plea is accepted, then there would be

no trial in this case;

7. The defendant was fully competent and capable of entering an informed guilty plea;

8. The defendant’s waiver of the right to file an appeal and to file a post-conviction

challenge, and the plea were free, knowing, and voluntary; and

9. There is a factual basis to support the plea of guilty.

Based upon the foregoing, and based upon the transcript of the proceedings, it is on this

7 day of April, 2011, recommended to the United States District Judge that the defendant’s plea th

of guilty be accepted and that a judgment of guilt to Count 1 of the Indictment be entered.

Respectfully,

s/Patty Shwartz 

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE

FAILURE TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE FOREGOING REPORT, WITHIN

FOURTEEN DAYS OF RECEIPT OF SAME, MAY BAR DE NOVO DETERMINATION

BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE OF AN ISSUE COVERED HEREIN AND

SHALL BAR APPELLATE REVIEW OF SUCH FACTUAL FINDINGS AS MAY BE

ACCEPTED OR ADOPTED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Case 2:10-cr-00854-MCA Document 44 Filed 04/07/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 119
---

32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Alejandro Aparicio, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Star Resorts Development Inc., hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Star Resorts
      Development Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (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 Star Resorts Development Inc..                                                                       

Dated: November 14, 2007



| | /s/
      Alejandro Aparicio         
| | -------------------------------------
| | Alejandro Aparicio                   
| | President and Chief Executive Officer
| | (Principal Executive Officer)        
| | Star Resorts Development Inc.        



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 Star Resorts
Development Inc. and will be retained by Star Resorts Development Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
DM1\2525265.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

JEFFREY M. MULLER; et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE HON. PHILIP J. MAENZA,et al., 

 Defendants. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

: 

:

: 

:

No. 2:10-CV-6110 (WHW) (CCC) 

SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that David Jensen PLLC, 708 Third 

Avenue, Sixth Floor, New York, New York 10017, is substituted in place of Duane Morris LLP, 

744 Broad Street, Suite 1200, Newark, New Jersey 07102, as counsel for all Plaintiffs in this 

action. 

Dated: March 2, 2010 DUANE MORRIS LLP

 Newark, New Jersey [Outgoing Attorneys] 

By: s/ Walter Greenhalgh

Walter Greenhalgh 

744 Broad Street, Suite 1200 

Newark, New Jersey 07102 

 DAVID JENSEN PLLC

 [New/Continuing Attorneys] 

By: s/ David D. Jensen 

David D. Jensen 

708 Third Avenue, Sixth Floor 

New York, New York 10017 

It is SO ORDERED this ______ day of __________________, 2010. 

 ___________________________________ 

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 32 Filed 03/02/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 358
1

Jules D. Zalon

20 Curtis Avenue

West Orange, New Jersey 07052

Tel: (973) 324-2444

Fax: (973) 547-9154

Email: jzalon@zalonoffice.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

MORNING SUN BOOKS, INC. Civil Action No. 11-0608 (CCC)

Plaintiff,

v.

DIVISION POINT MODELS, INC., et al,

Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

Answer

Defendant Uncle Dave’s Brass Model Trains, by its attorney Jules D. Zalon,

as and for its answer to the complaint filed herein, hereby respectfully:

1. Denies each and everyallegation contained in ¶¶9, 24, 32-34, 36-39, 41,

44-46 and 48-51 of the complaint.

2. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

allegations contained in ¶¶2, 12-21, 40 and 43 of the complaint and therefore denies the

same.

Case 2:11-cv-00608-CCC-JAD Document 20 Filed 07/08/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 269
2

3. Admits all allegations contained in ¶7 of the complaint, except denies

specifically that it is a “distributor for Defendant Division Point,” as that allegation gives the

wrongful impression that it is thereby an agent of Division Point. In fact, Uncle Dave’s is a

retailer that merely sells products, some of which are acquired from Division Point.

Affirmative Defenses

4. Fair use, to the extent that it utilized any photographs copyrighted by

plaintiff.

5. Plaintiff is not a proper party plaintiff to the false designation claim,

since no one could possibly be confused into believing that the model trains that defendant

sells emanate from, or are otherwise associated with, the plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, defendant Uncle Dave’s Brass Model Trains prays that this

Court dismiss the complaint in its entirety; and grant such other and further relief as the

Court deems just and proper.

Dated: West Orange, New Jersey

July 8, 2011

s/ Jules D. Zalon,

Attorney for Plaintiff

* * *

Certificate of Service

The undersigned certifies that on July 8, 2011 a true and correct copy of the foregoing answer

was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the

Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

Dated: West Orange, New Jersey

July 8, 2011 s/ Jules D. Zalon, attorney for plaintiff

Case 2:11-cv-00608-CCC-JAD Document 20 Filed 07/08/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 270
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Annual Report of BNP Residential Properties, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, D.
Scott Wilkerson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
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.




   /s/ D. Scott Wilkerson
--------------------------------------------
D. Scott Wilkerson
President and Chief Executive Officer

March 26, 2003

                                       78
<PAGE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONBY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connectionwith the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc.(the “Company”) for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RonaldT. Barnes, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

Date:  August 14, 2008

 
|   |                                    |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   | /s/ Ronald T. Barnes                    |
|   | Ronald T. Barnes                        |
|   | Senior Vice President, Chief  Financial |
|   | Officer and Secretary                   |

 

 

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW COX,

 Defendant.

Criminal No.: 11-99 (JLL)

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court by way of the following motions filed by pro se

Defendant Andrew Cox (“Defendant”): (1) Motion to Disqualify the instant District Court Judge

[Docket Entry No. 86]; (2) Motion for Removal and Sanctioning of Government Attorneys

[Docket Entry No. 89]; and (3) Motion for Release Pending Sentencing [Docket Entry No. 78];

the Court having considered the submissions of the Parties in support of and in opposition to the

instant motions, and for the reasons set forth in this Court’s accompanying Opinion,

IT IS accordingly on this 31 day of May, 2012,

st

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify the instant District Court Judge is

DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Removal and Sanctioning of Government

Attorneys is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Release Pending Sentencing is DENIED; and it

is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees [Docket Entry No. 108] is

1
DENIED without prejudice to the refiling of the same; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s request for the return of his property are DENIED without

prejudice pending the resolution of his Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s pending Motions as against the Government [Docket Entry

Nos. 88, 90, 92, 95 and 108] shall proceed before the instant Judge along with Defendant’s

discovery request filed with his Motion for Release [Docket Entry No. 78]; and it is further

ORDERED that the Government shall have fourteen (14) days from the issuance of this

Order to file its opposition, if any, to Defendant’s pending Motions, including his discovery

request; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant shall file his reply thereto, not to exceed ten (10) pages, by

June 21 , 2012; and it is further st

ORDERED that a hearing on Defendant’s pending Motions is hereby set before this

Court in Courtroom 5D, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey, on July 10 , 2012 at 1:30 p.m.

th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jose L. Linares 

United States District Judge

2
New data tell an old story: The more you learn, the

more you earn—and the less likely you are to be

unemployed. Earnings increase and unemployment

decreases with additional years of education. But

completing a program is worth more than attending

college without earning a degree.

Education pays, in part, because employers believe

educated workers learn tasks more easily and are

better organized. However, the data here are averages;

variations occur at all educational levels. The biggest

reason for the variety in earnings is the different

occupations people enter as a result of their education.

40 Occupational Outlook Quarterly ● Fall 1999

Median annual earnings, 1997 Unemployment rate (percent), 1998

Earnings and unemployment for year-round, full-time workers

age 25 and over, by educational attainment

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished data from the Current Population Survey (unemployment); Bureau of the Census,

Current Population Survey, PPL-99, Educational Attainment in the United States: March 1998, table 9 (unpublished data), and Current

Population Reports, P20-513, October 1998, “Educational Attainment in the United States: March 1998 (Update)” (earnings). For more

information, contact Jennifer C. Day or Andrea E. Curry at the Bureau of the Census, (301) 457-4608, or visit the Census website at

http://www.census.gov.

50,000

40,100

31,700

30,400

26,000

19,700

Master’s degree

Bachelor’s degree

Associate degree

Some college, no degree

High school graduate

Less than a high school diploma

7.1

4.0

3.2

2.5

1.9

1.6

62,400 Doctorate 1.4

$71,700 Professional degree 1.3

More education:

Higher earnings,

lower unemployment

More education:

Higher earnings,

lower unemployment
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-3403

___________________________ Sonia Esperanza Calderon Lopez lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner

v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent

____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

____________ Submitted: April 17, 2023 Filed: April 24, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Sonia Esperanza Calderon Lopez, a citizen of Guatemala, applied for asylum

and withholding of removal. An immigration judge denied her application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. 1 Calderon Lopez petitions for review. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, we conclude that Calderon Lopez has waived review of her asylum and withholding-of-removal claims because she has failed to meaningfully challenge the agency’s reasons for denying them. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft , 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (explaining that a claim not meaningfully argued in an opening brief is waived); see also , e.g. , Coreas-Chavez v. Garland , 52 F.4th 413, 416 (8th Cir. 2022); Hassan v. Rosen , 985 F.3d 587, 590 n.1 (8th Cir. 2021). Even if Calderon Lopez had not waived review, the agency did not err in denying those claims. Among other reasons, her asylum claim failed because she did not establish a cognizable proposed particular group, see Mayorga-Rosa v. Sessions , 888 F.3d 379, 383, 384-85 (8th Cir. 2018), or a nexus to any imputed anti-gang political opinion, see Aguilar v. Garland , 60 F.4th 401, 405-06 (8th Cir. 2023). These determinations, alone, were dispositive of her asylum claim. See Miranda v. Sessions , 892 F.3d 940, 944 (8th Cir. 2018); Gonzalez Cano v. Lynch , 809 F.3d 1056, 1059 (8th Cir. 2016). And because her asylum claim failed, she necessarily failed to meet the higher burden of proof for withholding of removal. See Agha , 743 F.3d at 615. Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R 47B.

______________________________

1 The immigration judge also pretermitted Calderon Lopez’s application for cancellation of removal, denied protection under the Convention Against Torture, and denied voluntary departure, but we do not consider those claims because they are unexhausted or waived. See Agha v. Holder , 743 F.3d 609, 616 (8th Cir. 2014) (discussing exhaustion); Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft , 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (discussing waiver). -2-
Case 2:10-mj-03683-MF Document 1 Filed 11/22/10 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 1
Case 2:10-mj-03683-MF Document 1 Filed 11/22/10 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 2
Case 2:10-mj-03683-MF Document 1 Filed 11/22/10 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 3
Case 2:10-mj-03683-MF Document 1 Filed 11/22/10 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 4
Case 2:10-mj-03683-MF Document 1 Filed 11/22/10 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 5
Case 2:10-mj-03683-MF Document 1 Filed 11/22/10 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 6
Case 2:10-mj-03683-MF Document 1 Filed 11/22/10 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 7
Case 2:10-mj-03683-MF Document 1 Filed 11/22/10 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 8
#### In the Matter of Jason Brian B. Administration for Children’s Services et al., Respondents; Rachel B., Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 724]

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Salinitro, J.), dated May 18, 2005, which, after a hearing, terminated her parental rights upon a finding that she is presently and for the foreseeable future unable by reason of mental retardation to provide proper and adequate care for the subject child, and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to OHEL Children’s Home and Family Services and the Administration for Children’s Services for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [3] [g]), that the mother is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental retardation, to provide proper and adequate care for the subject children *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [3] [g]; [4] [c]; *Matter of Lisa Marie S.,*304 AD2d 762, 763 [2003]; *Matter of Karan Ann B.,*293 AD2d 673, 674 [2002]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.E, Luciano, Rivera and Lunn, JJ., concur.
#### McHENRY v. ERIE R. CO.

Civ. No. 26664.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

Oct. 11, 1949.

David C. Haynes, Youngstown, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Manchester, Bennett, Powers & Ullman, Wm. T. Swanton, Youngstown, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is a personal injury action.

Plaintiff served written interrogatories on defendant under favor of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 33, 28 U.S.C.A., some 12 days after the commencement of *555the action by service of summons on the defendant.

Defendant moves for an order sustaining its objections to the interrogatories on the grounds that they were filed without leave of court before issue was joined.

Before the 1948 amendments it was generally accepted that the time for serving interrogatories on parties without leave of court was the same as provided for in Rule 26(a), i. e., after issue had been joined.

An addition to Rule 33 in the 1948 amendments provides that written interrogatories may be served on the other party without leave of court 10 days after the commencement of the action.

The interrogatories here in question were served 12 days after the commencement of the action and thus all requirements of Rule 33 have been met.

Defendant’s motion is overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Johnstown
Consolidated Income Partners/2 1996 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000812431
<NAME> JOHNSTOWN CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS/2
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             633
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        4
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                           1,701<F3>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,351
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,324
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,351
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   438
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   314
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       124
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.81<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F3>Investment property held for sale.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>