alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

________________________________________ _ ) SAI, et al. , ) ) Plaintiffs, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 20

- 1314 (UNA) ) FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ) COMMISSION, et al. , ) ) Defendants

. )

_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION The Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis . Pursuant to its May 19, 2020 , Order (ECF No. 4), plaintiffs were to pay the $400 filing fee within 30 days. Their failure to comply, the Court advised, would result in dismissal of the case without prejudice. This matter has come before the Court on plaintiff s’ “Motion for CM/ECF ac cess; identical relief to what this Court previously granted (re IFP seal, IFP, & appointment); hearing; and leave to file” (ECF No. 6 , “Pls.’ Mot.” ), construed as a motion to reconsider the May 19, 2020 , Order. There are two plaintiffs: Sai, an individu al, and Fi a t Fiendum, Inc., a corporate entity. The Court denied Sai’s application because he supplied no information from which to determine his ability to pay the filing fee. Further, the Court found that Fiat Fiendum is a corporate entity
which can not be granted in forma pauperis status. See Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council , 506 U.S. 194, 201, 202

- 03 (1993 ). Plaintiffs’ sole support for reconsideration of the May 19, 2020 , Order is a law review article arguing that c orporate entities can and should be granted in forma pauperis status. See generally Pls.’ Mot., Ex. A. Plaintiffs 7/ 1 /20202

cite no controlling authority, however, and the motion does not supply any information that might support Sai’s motion to proceed in forma p auperis

. The Court will deny plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider the May 19, 2020 , Order and will dismiss this case without prejudice. An Order is issued separately.

DATE: July 1, 2020 /s/ JAMES E. BOASBERG United States District Judge
Exhibit 32.2

The undersigned officer of The Stride Rite Corporation (the "Company") hereby
certifies that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 2, 2007 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission of the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and
shall not be deemed to be a part of the Report or "filed" for any purpose
whatsoever.



Date:       April 10, 2007          Name:       /s/ Frank A. Caruso
      ------------------------            ------------------------------------

                                    Title:      Chief Financial Officer
                                          ------------------------------------
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6934

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NIGEL NICHOLAS DOUGLAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-131-2, CA-97-806-2) Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 2, 1998 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nigel Nicholas Douglas, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a), the orders from which Douglas appeals were entered on the district court’s docket November 18, 1997, and May 20, 1998. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Nigel Nicholas Douglas seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record andthe district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Douglas’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Douglas , Nos. CR-93-131-2; CA-97-806-2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 18, 1997; May 20, 1998). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

MELODY JOY CANTU and

DR. RODRIGO CANTU, 

Plaintiffs

V.

DR. SANDRA GUERRA and

DIGITAL FORENSICS 

CORPORATION, LLC

Defendants

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NO 5:20-CV-00746-JKP (HJB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSED MOTION FOR 

AN ENDS OF JUSTICE CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL

On this date came on to be considered Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion for an Ends of Justice 

Continuance of Trial [Doc. 122] (the “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Continuance”) and Defendants’ 

Response to Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion for an Ends of Justice Continuance of Trial [Doc. _____] 

(“Defendants’ Response”). 

(a) Upon due consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Continuance and Defendants’ 

Response, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Continuance should be

DENIED in its entirety. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion for an Ends of

Justice Continuance of Trial is DENIED in all respects. 

OR

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 127-1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

(a) Upon due consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Continuance and Defendants’ 

Response, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Continuance should be

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that JURY TRIAL is set for 

_________________, 2023 at ________ A.M. in Courtroom B on the Second Floor 

of the United States Courthouse, 262 W. Nueva Street, San Antonio, Texas 78207.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with all current pretrial filing deadlines set forth in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Trial Scheduling Order 

[Doc. 123].

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Final Pretrial Conference will be held on 

Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom B on the Second Floor 

of the United States Courthouse, 262 W. Nueva Street, San Antonio, Texas 78207 

in accordance with paragraph 4 of the Trial Scheduling Order [Doc. 123].

It is so ORDERED.

Dated: ____________________ __________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 127-1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC 

 

v. Case No.: 6:20-cv-00507-ADA 

 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. ET 

AL 

 

ORDER 

BE IT REMEMBERED on this day, there was presented to the Court the Motion for Admission 

Pro Hac Vice filed by Zachary Loney (“Applicant”), counsel for Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., and the Court, having reviewed the motion, enters the following order: 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED, and Applicant 

may appear on behalf of Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. in the 

above case. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Applicant, if he/she has not already done so, shall immediately 

tender the amount of $100.00, made payable to: Clerk, U.S. District Court, in compliance with Local 

Court Rule AT-1(f)(2). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the corresponding Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice was 

e-filed, the attorney who filed the Motion on behalf of the Applicant is directed to notify the Applicant 

of this order. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Applicant, pursuant to the Administrative Policies and 

Procedures for Electronic Filing in Civil and Criminal cases in the Western District of Texas, shall 

register as a filing user within 10 days of the date of this Order, if he/she has not previously done so on 

a prior case in this District. 

SIGNED this the 16th day of November, 2021. 

ALAN D ALBRIGHT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 54 Filed 11/16/21 Page 1 of 1
Docket No. FAA-2013-1031
4/25/2014 Page of 

STANDARD REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT 

Summary Page 

Chemical ID: P-14-0341 Reviewer: Tobias/BC 

Endpoints-Assessed Table 

Endpoints/Assessment 

Cycles1

Releases 

Assessed 

in 

NCEM2? 

Reasons for not assessing releases 

No XB 

Testing 

Required 

No 

Hazard 

Concern 

No 

Releases 

Release 

Below 

Acute 

Threshold5

Release 

Below 

Chronic 

Threshold5

Other 

Ingestion 

 Surface water 

 Ground water (landfill) 

 Consumer Use: DtD2

Inhalation 

 Air: incineration (stack) 

 Air: fugitive 

 Consumer Use: CEM3

Dermal 

 Consumer Use: CEM 

Eco 

 Surface water: ADR 

conc and/or PDM4

 Consumer Use: DtD

1

Assessment cycles are endpoint concentrations and dose calculations within the NCEM2 model. 2

Down-the-Drain 

3

Consumer Exposure Model 

4

Probabilistic Dilution Model 

5

The threshold values for assessing endpoints are 1 mg/day for acute doses and 1 mg/year for chronic doses. 

EAB DROP:

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 1
Order entered February 13, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 12
- 01472
- CR ROY RODGERS, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court C ause No. F
- 1158855
- Y 

### O RDER
The Court GRANT S court reporter Sharon Hazlewood’s February 10, 2013 request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We ORDER Ms. Hazlewood to file the complete reporter’s record by MONDAY, MARCH 4, 2013

. W e DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Sharon Hazlewood, official court reporter, Criminal District Court No. 7, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hearby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                        October 25, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 am to 12:00 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5E01, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Jon M. Ranhand, PhD, Scientist Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5E03, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6884.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the re view and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program; 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 13, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-26964  Filed 10-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7848
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KATHY NELSON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-280-6, CA-96-696-6) Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 20, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kathy Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistratejudge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Nelson , Nos. CR-90-280-6; CA96-696-6 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 21, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 18, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 18, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0113. DULUTH GEORGIA 3312 BERKELEY LAKE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. v. 

U.S. LUMBER GROUP, LLC .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

17A07420
Continuity Agreement - Andrew W. Evans


    
      

      

    

     

    EXHIBIT
      10.5


    
      
         

      

      
         

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    


    


    To: Andrew
      W.
      Evans

    


    From: D.
      Raymond Riddle

     

    
      Re: 
        Notice
        Regarding and Amendment to Your Continuity Agreement Dated September 30,
        2005

    

    


    Date: February
      24, 2006

    


    Pursuant
      to Section 7.6 of the Continuity Agreement among you, AGL Resources Inc. and
      AGL
      Services Company, dated September 30, 2005 (the “Agreement”) and in
      consideration of ten dollars ($10.00) to be paid to you and other good and
      valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
      acknowledged, Sections 1.16(b) and 2.1 of the Agreement are hereby amended
      in
      their entirety to read as follows:

    


    1.16(b)
      any adverse change in the Executive's rate of annual base salary or annual
      incentive compensation opportunity (i.e., annual cash bonus opportunity under
      the Annual Incentive Plan or a successor plan) from the rate of annual base
      salary and annual incentive compensation opportunity in effect as of the
      earliest of the date of the Announcement, the date of a Change in Control or
      the
      date of the Consummation of a Change in Control Transaction;

     

    
      2.1.
        Term.
        Subject
        to Section 2.2, this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and
        shall
        continue in effect until November 30, 2007 (the “Term”). The Term shall be
        extended one (1) year on the first anniversary of the Effective Date and
        on each
        anniversary thereafter unless either party gives notice of non-extension
        prior
        to any such anniversary.

    

    


    	 	
             

          


    Furthermore,
      this Amendment and Notice is being furnished to inform you that the Agreement
      will not be extended beyond the last date of its now current Term, November
      30,
      2007. 

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Executive have executed this Amendment and
      Notice to be effective as of the date and year first written above.

    


    COMPANY:

    


    AGL
      RESOURCES, INC.


    


    By:
       /s/
      D.
      Raymond Riddle   

    Title:
      Interim Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

    


    


    EXECUTIVE:


    


    /s/
      Andrew W. Evans    

    SIGNATURE
      


    


    


    [THIS
      DOCUMENT HAS BEEN EXECUTED IN DUPLICATE.]
#### FREEMAN v. STATE.

No. 25930.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 25, 1952.

Ray Martin, Wichita Falls, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is misdemeanor theft; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $200.

Our able State’s Attorney has confessed error herein because of a fatal defect in the information. He calls our attention to the fact that it fails to allege that the property stolen was taken from the possession of the owner, or from one who had possession thereof at the time it was taken.

Such an information does not charge an offense. Robinson v. State, 71 Tex.Cr.R. 561. 160 S.W. 456; Henley v. State, 61 Tex.Cr.R. 428, 135 S.W. 133; Taylor v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 463, 217 S.W. 937; Ryan v. State, 76 Tex.Cr.R. 510, 176 S.W. 49.

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          29,372
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,631
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 9,250
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    458,331
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         482,783
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           482,365
<LOANS>                                        521,880
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,576
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,071,314
<DEPOSITS>                                     869,152
<SHORT-TERM>                                    12,469
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,264
<LONG-TERM>                                    105,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           114
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,515
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,071,314
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 47,725
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               26,621
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   481
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                74,827
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              36,038
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,014
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           33,813
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,326
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,135
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 22,895
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,379
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,974
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,405
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.94
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.61
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,190
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,528
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,143
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,168
<RECOVERIES>                                       275
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,576
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,576
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Chicago, Illinois 60604 June 26, 2006
Hon. JOEL M. FLAUM, Chief Judge Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

JONATHAN BARTLETT, ] ] Appeal from the United Petitioner-Appellant, ] States District Court for ] the Northern District of ] Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 05-1715 v. ] ] No. 04 C 4204 DEIRDRE BATTAGLIA, Warden, ] ] Matthew F. Kennelly, Respondent-Appellee. ] Judge.

O R D E R The opinion issued in the above-entitled case on June 21, 2006 is hereby amended as follows:
In the caption and in the second line of Footnote 1 the name Deidre should be spelled “ Deirdre ”.