alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
RE: Onstream Media Corporation v. Facebook Inc.

 1:20-CV-214-ADA, Formerly Case No. 6:19-CV-708-ADA

Dear Counsel:

This is to advise you that the above captioned case has been transferred from the Western

District of Texas, Waco Division, and filed in this office on February 26, 2020.

The case has been given case number 1:20-CV-214-ADA and assigned to the Honorable Alan D. 

Albright. It is requested that all future pleadings reflect the case number assigned in this court 

and that they be filed in the Office of the Clerk at the above address.

Please be sure to review the Local Rules for the Western District of Texas, standing orders for 

the Austin Division, and the Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing. The 

E-Filing and E-Noticing Registration Form and various other forms are available on our 

website www.txwd.uscourts.gov. 

If you have any questions regarding the above information, please do not hesitate to call our 

office at (512) 916-5896.

Sincerely,

Deputy Clerk/CJ

JEANNETTE J. CLACK

CLERK OF COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS PHILIP J. DEVLIN

501 West 5th Street, Ste. 1100 CHIEF DEPUTY

Austin, TX 78701

February 26, 2020

Case 1:20-cv-00214-ADA Document 20 Filed 02/26/20 Page 1 of 1
1

From: Jonathan Lee 

Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 5:02 PM

To: ZroBlack, LLC_003

Subject: Fwd: Zroblack.com

Sent from my iPhone 

Begin forwarded message: 

From:

Date: August 15, 2019 at 5:54:36 PM CDT 

To: jsaenz

Subject: Zroblack.com

Hey man, 

Can you transfer the zroblack.com website to this email address. 

 

Let me know if you run into any issues. 

Thanks, 

Jonathan 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-21 Filed 12/16/20 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct Of 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. § 1350)**

 

Inconnection with the quarterly report of SouthWest Water Company (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”), I,David Stanton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), that:

 

1)             to my knowledge, the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)             the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: September 18, 2009 | /s/ DAVID STANTON       |   |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                           | David Stanton           |   |
|                           | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
Exhibit 10.6 Promissory Note







EXHIBIT 10.6


10.6 Promissory Note dated August 3, 2001 between David Hancock and
     CommunicateNow.com, Inc.



                                 Promissory Note

$ 18,000.00 USD                   Temple, Texas               Date Aug. 03, 2001


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, after date, without grace, in the manner, on the dates, and
in the amounts so herein stipulated, the Undersigned, Communicate Now.com Inc.

PROMISE TO PAY TO THE ORDER OF : David Hancock, At Temple, Texas in Bell County

                THE SUM OF EIGHTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($18,000.00)

In lawful money of the United States of America, which shall be legal tender, in
payments of all debts and dues, public and private at the time of payment, and
to pay interest thereon from the date until maturity at the rate of 6.5% per
annum, payable as stipulated herein.

THIS NOTE IS DUE AND PAYABLE AS FOLLOWS TO WIT:

Eighteen Thousand dollars ($18,000.00) principal due on December 3, 2001,
interest due on the 3rd of each month (monthly interest amount 97.50)

IT IS AGREED that time is of the essence of this agreement, and that in the
event of default in the payment of any installment of principal or interest when
due, the holder of this note may declare the entirety of the evidenced herby due
and payable without notice, and failure to exercise said option shall not
constitute a waiver on part of the holder of the right to exercise the same at
any other time.

IN THE EVENT of default in the making of any payment herein provided, either or
principal or interest, or in the event the entirety of said note evidenced
hereby is declared due, interest shall accrue at the rate of 10.0% per annum
from such time.

THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY AGREES to pay all expenses incurred, including an
additional 10.0% on the amount of principal and interest hereof as attorney's
fees, all of which shall become part of the principal hereof, if this note is
placed in the hands of an attorney for collection, or if collected by suite or
through any probate, bankruptcy or other legal proceedings,

EACH MAKER, SURETY and endorser waives demand, grace, notice, presentment for
payment, and protest and agrees and consents that this note an the liens
securing its payment, may be renewed, and the time of payment extended without
notice, and without releasing any of the parties.


                             CommunicateNow.Com Inc.


                    ----------------------------------------
                            David Hancock, President
#### MEGGS v. STATE.

No. 25785.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 28, 1952.

No attorney for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge,

The offense is burglary; the punishment, five years.

*64The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

The proceedings appear regular; and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
|                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                           
|                                                                                        
|Louisiana State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                        
|                                                                                        
|Louisiana State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        | 3,202  |        |        |        |        | 1,312  | 1,431  | 1,172  | 1,219 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 969    | 1,024  | 776    | 917    | 960    | 838    | 734    | 725    | 551    | 628   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 696    | 745    | 491    | 506    | 382    | 418    | 424    | 378    | 898    | 701   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 371    | 502    | 502    | 402    | 327    | 225    | 334    | 222    | 258    | 355   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 349    | 176    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1699

AMRIK HENDIAZAD; SEEMIN HENDIAZAD,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-01270-CMH-TCB)

Submitted: March 31, 2023 Decided: April 27, 2023

Before DIAZ and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Amrik Hendiazad, Seemin Hendiazad, Appellants Pro Se. John Curtis Lynch, 

TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Syed 

Mohsin Reza, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1699 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Amrik and Seemin Hendiazad appeal the district court’s order denying their motion 

to remand their case to state court following removal and granting the Defendants’ motion 

to dismiss the action on res judicata grounds. We affirm. 

We review de novo both a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and its denial of a motion to remand to state court. See Rockville 

Cars, LLC v. City of Rockville, 891 F.3d 141, 145 (4th Cir. 2018) (motion to dismiss); 

Francis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 709 F.3d 362, 366 (4th Cir. 2013) (motion to remand). We 

conclude that the district court did not err in denying the Hendiazads’ motion to remand to 

state court, as the complaint established federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331, 1441(a); North Carolina v. Alcoa Power Generating, Inc., 853 F.3d 140, 146 (4th 

Cir. 2017). We also discern no reversible error in the district court’s finding that res 

judicata barred the Hendiazads’ action. See Duckett v. Fuller, 819 F.3d 740, 744 (4th Cir. 

2016) (listing elements of res judicata). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1699 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 190 (Friday, September 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58505-58506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25058]


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

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED


Procurement List; Additions

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Additions to the Procurement List.

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

SUMMARY: This action adds to the Procurement List services to be 
furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have 
other severe disabilities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Louis R. Bartalot (703) 603-7740

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 11 and 18, 2000, the Committee for 
Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published 
notices (65 FR 49218 and 50499) of proposed additions to the 
Procurement List.
    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning 
capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and 
impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the 
Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable 
for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 
CFR 51-2.4. I certify that the following action will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major 
factors considered for this certification were:
    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, 
recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other 
than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the 
Government.
    2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on current 
contractors for the services.
    3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish 
the services to the Government.
    4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would 
accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-
48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the 
Procurement List.
    Accordingly, the following services are hereby added to the 
Procurement List:

[[Page 58506]]

Janitorial/Custodial

Travis VA Outpatient Clinic, Travis AFB, California

Janitorial/Custodial

Buildings 559, 1105, 2045 and 2070, Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii

Janitorial/Custodial

Naval Support Activity, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Janitorial/Grounds Maintenance

U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Sacramento, McClellan AFB, California

    This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the 
effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under 
those contracts.

Louis R. Bartalot,
Deputy Director (Operations).
[FR Doc. 00-25058 Filed 9-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5279 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain portable personal area mosquito 

repellents. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. PETRI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain portable personal 

area mosquito repellents. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN PORTABLE PERSONAL AREA MOS4 QUITO REPELLENTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5279 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Continuous action, self-contained, refillable, fan-motor 

driven, battery-operated, 

portable personal area mosquito repellents (provided for 

in subheading 8414.59.60) ... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO DIVISION

USA

vs.

(1) Maria Luisa Cuellar Santillan

§

§

§

§

§

NO: EP:20-CR-00582(1)-DCG

ORDER SETTING SENTENCING

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case

is set for SENTENCING, IN PERSON, in District Courtroom, Room 322, on the

3rd Floor of the United States Courthouse, 525 Magoffin, El Paso, TX, on:

September 12, 2022 at 9:00 AM.

Counsel for the defendant should prepare his or her client, who

is on pre-trial release, for the possibility of an immediate surrender into

the custody of the United States Marshal, at the time of the entry of a

finding of guilt on any case described in 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (f)(1)(A), (B), or

(C), as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2).

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall send a copy of this

order to counsel for defendant, the United States Attorney, United States

Pretrial Services and the United States Probation Office. Counsel for the

defendant shall notify the defendant of this setting and, if the defendant is on

pre-trial release, advise the defendant to be present at this proceeding.

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if for any reason the defendant or

counsel is not available that the attorney of the defendant must file a motion

for continuance.

 IT FURTHER ORDERED that if there is any need for an interpreter,

other than a Spanish language interpreter for the defendant or a witness for

the defendant, should be communicated to the Courtroom Deputy, no later

than five (5) business days prior to the court setting wherein the interpreter will

be required.

Case 3:20-cr-00582-DCG Document 109 Filed 06/28/22 Page 1 of 2
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of June, 2022.

______________________________

HON. DAVID C GUADERRAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00582-DCG Document 109 Filed 06/28/22 Page 2 of 2
#### WARREN v. STATE.

No. 24262.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 9, 1949.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

The conviction is for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor in a dry area. The penalty assessed is a fine of $100.

The State’s Attorney before this court has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the transcript contains no notice of appeal as required by Article 827, C.C.P., in order to confer jurisdiction herein. ,

The State’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is ordered dismissed.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

CYNTHIA SPENCER, WILLIAM 

SPENCER, LISA JACKSON, JENNIFER 

JOHN, BRIAN BYRD, AMY BYRD,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF CIBOLO, TEXAS, STANLEY 

BOYLE, MARK D. ALLEN, STEVEN 

QUINN, JOEL HICKS,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

SA-20-CV-00350-JKP

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

Before the Court in the above-styled cause of action is the parties’ Joint Motion to 

Modify the Scheduling Order for Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines [#36]. By their 

motion, the parties jointly request an extension of the discovery and dispositive motions 

deadlines to accommodate additional depositions and a mediation before a United States 

Magistrate Judge. The parties have submitted a separate filing requesting referral to mediation. 

The Court will grant the motion.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Modify the 

Scheduling Order for Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines [#36] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following amended deadlines are issued to 

govern the remaining course of this case:

1. Parties shall initiate all discovery procedures in time to complete discovery on or before 

September 1, 2021. 

2. Counsel shall confer and file a joint report setting forth the status of settlement 

negotiations on or before July 12, 2021. 

Case 5:20-cv-00350-JKP-ESC Document 37 Filed 06/04/21 Page 1 of 2
2

3. On or before June 29, 2021, the parties shall file any Daubert motions and challenge to 

or motion to exclude expert witnesses. Any such motion must specifically state the basis 

for the objection and identify the objectionable testimony.

4. On or before October 1, 2021, parties shall file any dispositive motions, including 

motions for summary judgment on all or some of the claims. Further, notwithstanding 

any deadline provided herein, no motion (other than a motion in limine) may be filed 

after this date except for good cause.

5. The Court will set dates for trial and the final pretrial conference after ruling on any 

dispositive motions or after the deadline for such motions passes without a pertinent 

filing. At that time, the Court will also set appropriate deadlines for trial and pretrial 

conference matters.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 4th day of June, 2021.

ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00350-JKP-ESC Document 37 Filed 06/04/21 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:20-cr-00711-FM Document 98 Filed 02/23/23 Page 1 of 6
Case 3:20-cr-00711-FM Document 98 Filed 02/23/23 Page 2 of 6
Case 3:20-cr-00711-FM Document 98 Filed 02/23/23 Page 3 of 6
Case 3:20-cr-00711-FM Document 98 Filed 02/23/23 Page 4 of 6
Case 3:20-cr-00711-FM Document 98 Filed 02/23/23 Page 5 of 6
Case 3:20-cr-00711-FM Document 98 Filed 02/23/23 Page 6 of 6
#### ASSOCIATES DISCOUNT CORP. v. BROYLES.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 16, 1952.

Mapother & Morgan, Louisville, for appellant.

*27Sidney Baer, Richard P. Watts, Louisville, for appellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

This appeal was granted below. At the outset, we have the question of whether the amount in controversy is sufficient to give this Court jurisdiction of the appeal so granted.

Associates Discount Corporation, a finance company, brought a claim and delivery action against George T. Broyles, seeking to recover possession of an automobile because of default of Broyles in making payments under a chattel mortgage held by the company. The automobile, after being seized by the sheriff, was turned over to the company, and the company then sold the automobile at public sale. Thereafter, Broyles filed a counterclaim in the action, alleging that the price received at the public sale exceeded the balapce due on the chattel mortgage, and asking judgment for the amount of the excess. A motion to strike and a demurrer to the counterclaim were overruled, and upon a trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of Broyles in the sum of $294.17, representing the amount the jury believed the automobile was sold for in excess of the balance due on the mortgage.

The judgment was as follows:

> “It is therefore ordered considered and adjudged that the Plaintiffs Associates Discount Corporation recover nothing on their petition herein filed, but that the Defendant, George T. Broyles recover of the plaintiff Associates Discount Corporation in the sum of $294.17, and his costs herein expended, and for which execution may issue.”

On this appeal, the finance company contends that its motion to strike and demurrer to the counterclaim should have been sustained, and the judgment is contrary to law because it did not award possession of the automobile to either party.

As far as the counterclaim is concerned, the amount in controversy on this appeal is $294.17, which would put the case in that class of cases in which a motion for appeal is required in order to confer jurisdiction upon this Court. KRS 21.080. Unless the value of the car also is included in the amount in controversy, by reason of the failure of the judgment to award possession of the car to the plaintiff, the granting of the appeal by the lower court was ineffective.

We are of the opinion that, although the judgment did not in so many words award possession of the car to the plaintiff, the practical effect of the .judgment was the same as if possession had been awarded. The judgment by necessary implication recognized that the plaintiff had been given possession of the car and had lawfully disposed of it by public sale. Actually, there was no real controversy in the lower court over the question of possession, and if we should reverse the case for a new trial the question of possession as a practical matter would not be in issue.

If we should sustain all of appellant’s contentions, and reverse the judgment, the only result would be to relieve appellant of a judgment against it in the sum.of $294.17. This is the only amount in controversy.

The appeal is dismissed.