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

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

ADRIAN GILLIARD

 Plaintiff,

v.

COURTNEY LUMME, et. al., Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

6:20-CV-278-ADA-JCM

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 

Jeffrey C. Mankse. ECF No. 48. The Report recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend 

Complaint be denied and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, the Report recommends that any remaining Motions 

pending in this matter be denied as moot. The Report and Recommendation was filed on March 

1, 2021.

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and 

recommendations of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of 

the report and recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or 

general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting 

Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other 

grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)). 

Plaintiff filed objections on March 15, 2021. ECF No. 49. The Court has conducted a de 

novo review of the motions in question, the responses, the report and recommendation, the 

objections to the report and recommendation, and the applicable laws. After that thorough 

Case 6:20-cv-00278-ADA-JCM Document 54 Filed 03/31/21 Page 1 of 2
review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation should 

be adopted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United 

States Magistrate Judge Manske, ECF No. 48 is ADOPTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that that Defendants Lumme and Downs’s Motion to 

Dismiss and Defendants Gatlin, Spence, and Baker’s Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED IN 

PART as to the Rooker-Feldman ground therein. As a result, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s 

Complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

The Court also DENIES IN PART AS MOOT the remaining grounds in Defendants Lumme 

and Downs’s Motion to Dismiss and Defendants Gatlin, Spence, and Baker’s Motion to Dismiss.

Further, the Court DENIES AS MOOT all remaining Motions to Dismiss.

The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend as futile. Finally, the Court 

DENIES AS MOOT all remaining Motions in this matter.

SIGNED this 31st day of March, 2021.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00278-ADA-JCM Document 54 Filed 03/31/21 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             639
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,354
<ALLOWANCES>                                        18
<INVENTORY>                                      1,118
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,599
<PP&E>                                          39,018
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,592
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,998
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,143
<BONDS>                                            808
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,491
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,998
<SALES>                                          7,379
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,632
<CGS>                                            5,862
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   577
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     4
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  45
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    785
<INCOME-TAX>                                       253
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                517
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       517
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### TWO ONE-BALL PINBALL MACHINES in the possession of Denham-Dodd Pool Room, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 2, 1952.

Rehearing Denied June 20, 1952.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Richard L. Garnett, Commonwealth’s Atty., Glasgow, for appellant.

J. Wood Vance, Jr., Marion Vance, Glasgow, Rodes K. Myers, Bowling Green, for appellee.

COMBS, Justice.

This is a companion case to Three One-Ball Pinball Machines v. Commonwealth, Ky., 249 S.W.2d 144.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated in the companion case.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JEROME CORSI, et al

Plaintiff, 

 v.

INFOWARS LLC, et al

Defendants

 Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-298-LY

 

PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED REQUEST FOR EXPEDITIOUS HEARING

Plaintiffs Larry Klayman and Dr. Jerome Corsi hereby respectfully renew their request 

for a hearing in this matter, as currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave 

to File Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs respectfully request that a hearing be held 

immediately, as their right to appeal the denial of the Court’s order of dismissal and subsequent 

denial of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration will run on October 18, 2021. The matter of 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint must be resolved before then.

A hearing is necessary in the interests of due process and justice, as Plaintiffs have 

repeatedly asked for one, and have not been granted one by this honorable Court.

Dated: September 30, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/Sanjay Biswas 

SANJAY BISWAS, Esq.

#24061235—Texas

#24966--Louisiana

11720 Duxbury Dr.

Frisco, Texas 75035

Telephone: (972)-866-5879

Email:sanjaybiswas41@gmail.com

Fax: 1-800-506-6804

Counsel for Dr. Jerome Corsi

/s/Larry Klayman 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-DH Document 159 Filed 09/30/21 Page 1 of 2
2

Larry Klayman, Esq.

7050 W. Palmetto Park Rd

Boca Raton FL, 33433

Email:leklayman@gmail.com

Tel: 561-558-5336

Plaintiff Pro Se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 30, 2021 a true copy of the foregoing was filed 

via ECF and served to all counsel of record though the Court’s ECF system.

/s/ Sanjay Biswas

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-DH Document 159 Filed 09/30/21 Page 2 of 2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

JTK/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BERNARDO GUZMAN-ARANDA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74272

Agency No. A047-347-949

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 16, 2010** 

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Bernardo Guzman-Aranda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

FILED

MAR 24 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JTK/Research 2 07-74272

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo whether the statutory right to counsel was

violated. Mendoza-Mazariegos v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 1074,1079 (9th Cir. 2007). 

We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

Guzman-Aranda was denied his statutory right to counsel because the IJ

failed to secure his knowing and voluntary waiver of the right, see Hernandez-Gil

v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 803, 806 (9th Cir. 2007), and did not “inquire whether there

[was] good cause to grant [Guzman-Aranda] more time to obtain counsel,” Biwot

v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094, 1100 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreover, the absence of

counsel at Guzman-Aranda’s hearing resulted in prejudice. See Tawadrus v.

Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1106 (9th Cir. 2004) (alien demonstrated prejudice where

an attorney could have assisted him in his testimony and could have made legal

objections to the admission of certain evidence).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5043 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Ancamine 2422. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

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

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Ancamine 2422. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ANCAMINE 2422. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Modified aliphatic 

polyamine mixture of reaction products of 1,3- 

bis(aminomethyl)benzene 

with phenol and formaldehyde and 1,3- 

bis(aminomethyl)benzene 

(Ancamine 2422) (provided 

for in subheading 

3909.30.00) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5043 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MICHAEL GILNER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D23-1110

[August 17, 2023]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Bernard I. Bober, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 18-003098-CF-10A.

Michael Gilner, Daytona Beach, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
PricewaterhouseCoopers

								PriceWaterhouseCoopers

								400 S. Hope St.

								Los Angeles, CA 90071-2889

								Telephone: (213) 236-3000

								Facsimile: (813) 637-4444

Report of Independent Accountants

To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of

Green Point Mortgage Funding, Inc.

We have examined management's assertion about GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.'s ("the Company"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of GreenPoint Bank, compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 included in the accompanying management assertion (see Exhibit I). Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 27, 2003
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     Nine Months Ended
                                                     ---------------------------------------------
                                                     September 30, 1997         September 30, 1996
                                                     ---------------------------------------------   
(in thousands)                                       Shares        EPS          Shares         EPS
                                                     -----------------          ------------------     
<S>                                                  <C>        <C>             <C>         <C>
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE

Average shares outstanding                           99,042                     93,454
Common Stock equivalents                                832                        612
                                                     ------     ------          ------      -----
Primary shares/EPS                                   99,874     $ 2.25          94,066      $1.98
                                                     ======     ======          ======      =====
</TABLE>
 

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
<S>                                                  <C>        <C>             <C>         <C>
Average shares outstanding                           99,042                     93,454
Common Stock equivalents                                880                        644
                                                     ------     ------          ------      -----
Fully Diluted shares/EPS                             99,922     $ 2.25          94,098      $1.98
                                                     ======     ======          ======      =====
</TABLE>


                                       27
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

BERTHA ALICE GUSTAFSON,

Plaintiff

vs.

ANDREW M. SAUL, COMMISSIONER 

OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION;

Defendant

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 Case No. SA-20-CV-00393-ESC

ORDER

This order concerns Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access 

to Justice Act [#18]. By her motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to award her attorney’s fees 

pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a), as the “prevailing 

party” in the above-styled cause of action. The EAJA provides a mandatory attorney’s fee award 

for a prevailing party that meets certain financial eligibility requirements. Baker v. Bowen, 839 

F.2d 1075, 1079–80 (5th Cir. 1988). Once the plaintiff establishes these facts, the government 

must pay attorney’s fees unless it is able to prove that its position was substantially justified, or 

special circumstances make an award unjust. Id.

The record reflects that on July 26, 2021, the Court ordered that the Commissioner’s 

decision that the Plaintiff is not disabled be vacated and remanded [#16]. That same day, the 

Court issued a Final Judgment vacating the Commissioner’s administrative determination finding 

Plaintiff not disabled and remanding this case for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four 

of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) [#17]. The Fifth Circuit has held that a party who obtains a remand in a 

social security appeal pursuant to the fourth sentence of § 405(g) qualifies as a prevailing party 

Case 5:20-cv-00393-ESC Document 20 Filed 11/04/21 Page 1 of 2
2

for purposes of fees under the EAJA. Breaux v. U.S.D.H.H.S., 20 F.3d 1324, 1324 (5th Cir. 

1994) (per curiam). 

Plaintiff has requested fees in the amount of $6,540.00 and expenses in the amount of 

$400.00. In support of the instant motion, Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted an itemization of the 

hours he spent representing Plaintiff in this case before the Court. According to Plaintiff, her 

attorney has spent a total of 32.7 hours on this case at a rate of $200.00 per hour. The 

Commissioner has filed a response to the motion [#19], which indicates she is not opposed to 

Plaintiff’s fee request. 

Having reviewed the motion and the record in this case, and in light of the lack of 

opposition on the part of the Commissioner, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award 

of attorney’s fees under the EAJA as the prevailing party in this case, and the Court will grant 

Plaintiff’s motion.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant 

to the Equal Access to Justice Act [#18] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded $6,940.00 in attorney’s fees and 

expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), made payable to 

Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel at his address on record. 

SIGNED this 4th day of November, 2021.

ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00393-ESC Document 20 Filed 11/04/21 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



I, John S. Buchanan, Chief Financial Officer of Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. (the
Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and



(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.



|                      |  |  |  |                         |  |  |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------- |  |  |  | 
|Dated: March 25, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ John S. Buchanan   
|                      |  |  |  | John S. Buchanan       
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. and will be retained by Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



1
AO 120 (Rev. 08/10)

TO: Mail Stop 8

Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

REPORT ON THE

FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN

ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR

TRADEMARK

In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been

filed in the U.S. District Court Western District of Texas on the following

G Trademarks or G✔ Patents. ( G the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):

DOCKET NO.

6:20-cv-456

PLAINTIFF

DATE FILED

6/2/2020

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Western District of Texas

Format m/d/yyyy DEFENDANT

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a BRAZOS

LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT

Microsoft Corporation

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

1 7,676,550 3/9/2010 WSOU Investments, LLC

2

Format m/d/yyyy

3

4

5

In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:

DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY

G Amendment G Answer G Cross Bill G Other Pleading

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

1

2

3

4

5

In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:

DECISION/JUDGEMENT

03/03/2022 - Voluntary Dismissal

DATE

03/03/2022

Copy 1—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director

Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy

Print Save As... Reset

Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 111 Filed 03/03/22 Page 1 of 1
#### Board of Education of the Depew Union Free School District, Respondent, v Depew Teachers Organization, Inc., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The court properly granted plaintiff’s motion to stay arbitration concerning retirement benefits allegedly due Mr. George Karalus. That arbitration must await resolution of plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J.—dismiss complaint.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
|                                                                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                           
|                                                                                                        
|Texas--RRC District 8 Shale Proved Reserves New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                        
|Texas--RRC District 8 Shale Proved Reserves New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 3      | 0      | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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