alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL W. SWOOPES, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. CHARLES L. RYAN; et al., Respondents - Appellees. No. 11-16918 D.C. No. 4:93-cv-00471-DCB
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 11, 2014 ** San Francisco, California Before: SILVERMAN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and WATSON, District Judge. *** 

# FILED
AUG 13 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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). *** The Honorable Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.-2- Arizona state prisoner Samuel Swoopes appeals the district court’s July 21, 2011 order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We review de novo , see , e.g. , Carrera v. Ayers , 699 F.3d 1104, 1106 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and we reverse and remand. Swoopes filed his original federal pe tition in 1993, before the enactment of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Deat h Penalty Act (AEDPA). Review of Swoopes’ petition is accordingly governed by the pre-AEDPA standard of review. See , e.g. , Sivak v. Hardison , 658 F.3d 898, 905 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court, however, applied the AEPDA standard, and denied relief, finding that the state court did not unreasonably apply federal law. Compare 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (1996) with 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1966). Under the pre-AEDPA standard, while a federal habeas court does not defer to stat e courts’ ultimate determination of mixed questions of law and fact, such as questi ons of harmlessness, it usually does defer to the factual findings underlying such determinations. See, e.g. , Mayfield v. Calderon , 229 F.3d 895, 901 (9th Cir. 2000). Because the district court applied the incorrect standard to its analysis of the petition, we reverse and remand for-3- consideration by the district court, in the first instance, of petitioner’s claims under the appropriate standard. 1 REVERSED and REMANDED.

1 We decline to expand the certifi cate of appealability. The uncertified issues are not before us and are not subject to this remand.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00028-Z-BR-3

§

BRIAN PAUL JONES §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

BRIAN PAUL JONES, by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 1997), has 

appeared before me pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 6 of the Indictment. After 

cautioning and examining BRIAN PAUL JONES under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I 

determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is supported by an 

independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea of 

guilty be accepted, and that BRIAN PAUL JONES be adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C) -

DISTRIBUTION AND POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE METHAMPHETAMINE and have sentence 

imposed accordingly. After being found guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☒ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: June 17, 2022

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00028-Z-BR Document 118 Filed 06/17/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 274
Case 3:22-cr-00138-L Document 22 Filed 08/03/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 35
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Quarterly  Report of Secured  Digital  Applications,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  March 31, 2004 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Chee Hong Leong, Chief Financial 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) 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Chee Hong Leong

Chee Hong Leong
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2004
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Quarterly  Report of Secured Digital  Applications,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly  period ending June 30, 2006 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Voon Fui Yong,  Chief  Accounting  Officer  (principal  financial
officer) of the Company, 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 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 result of  operations of the
Company.


/s/ Voon Fui Yong
-------------------
Voon Fui Yong
Chief Accounting Officer
August 11, 2006
1

Ogulei, David

From: Damico, Genevieve

Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:20 PM

To: Woolums, Jane; Ogulei, David; Morgan, Andrea; Mooney, John

Subject: FW: Veolia

Attachments: Letter to Genevieve Damico, USEPA.PDF

From: Kellmeyer, Joseph [mailto:JKELLMEYER@thompsoncoburn.com] 

Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:06 PM 

To: Damico, Genevieve; Czerniak, George 

Cc: Kellmeyer, Joseph; Kemper, Ryan Russell 

Subject: Veolia 

Dear Genevieve – 

 

Attached please find correspondence relating to your meeting with Veolia last week. I would appreciate someone giving 

me a call relating to the issues discussed therein.

Thanks. 

Joseph M. Kellmeyer

jkellmeyer@thompsoncoburn.com

P: 314.552.6166 

F: 314.552.7166

M: 314.602.6166

Thompson Coburn LLP

One US Bank Plaza

St. Louis, MO 63101

www.thompsoncoburn.com

 ________________________________ 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This message and any attachments are from a law firm. They are solely for the use of the intended recipient and may contain 

privileged, confidential or other legally protected information. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies without reading or disclosing their 

contents and notify the sender of the error by reply e-mail 

TAX DISCLOSURE: The IRS requires that we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice in this message (including any attachments) is not intended or written to 

be used, and cannot be used, to (i) avoid any penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction, 

arrangement or other matter.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 3, 2024 

# S

In the 

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

No. 05-23-01211-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF B.R., S.R. AND S.R., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-12-11159

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Carlyle By motion filed April 18, 2024, appellant as ks the Court to either dismiss this
appeal or affirm the trial court’s judgmen t and grant appellant judgment for costs.
We grant the motion to the ex tent we dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.
42.1(a)(1).

231211F.P05 / Cor y L. Carl y le / CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF B.R., S.R. AND S.R., CHILDREN

No. 05-23-01211-CV On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-12-11159. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle, Justices Partida-Kipness and Pedersen, III participating.

In accordance with this Court’ s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered May 3, 2024.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

JOHN GRIGSON,

Plaintiff,

No. 5:22-CV-040-H

ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

ORDER

United States Magistrate Judge D. Gordon Bryant made Findings, Conclusions, and

a Recommendation (FCR) regarding the plaintiffJohn Grigson's Motion to Remand (Dkt.

No. 9) and the parties'Agreed Joint Motion to Remand (Dkr. No, 14). Dkt. No. 20. Judge

Bryant recommended that the Court grant Grigson's motion, deny the parties' joint motlon

as moot, and remand the case to state court. Id. at17.

Judge Bryant also made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation regarding

an award of attomeys' fees to Grigson incurred as a result of the defendant's removal. Dkt.

No. 23. He recommended that the Court decline to award fees and costs under 28 U.S.C.

51,447(c). Id. at9.

Where no specific objections are filed within 14 days after a pafiy is served with a

copy of the FCR, the Court must review the FCR only for plain error. See Douglax t. United

Servs, Auto. Ass'n,79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cn. 1996), superseded by statute on othergrounds,2S

U.S.C.0 636(bX1); Senano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U. S. Customs & Border Prot., 97 5 F .3d

488,502 (5th Cir. 2020). No objections were fi1ed to either FCR within the 14-day period.

Case 5:22-cv-00040-H-BQ Document 24 Filed 07/01/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 183
The Court has examined the record and reviewed both FCRs for plain enor.

Findiag none, the Court accepts and adopts the FCRs (Dkt. Nos. 20; 23). The Court grants

Grigson's Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 9), denies the parties' Agreed Joint Motion to

Remand (Dkt. No. 14) as moot, and remands the case to the County Court at Law Number

3, Lubbock County, Texas. The Court also declines to award fees and costs under

28 U.S.C. $ 1447(c).

So ordered on July )n) )

A)

J

UN

WESLEY HEND

D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

.)

'-(-

Case 5:22-cv-00040-H-BQ Document 24 Filed 07/01/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 184
EXHIBIT 32.2



BORDERS
GROUP, INC.

STATEMENT
OF EDWARD W. WILHELM,SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
BORDERS GROUP, INC.PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Edward W. Wilhelm,
certify that the Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 25, 2004, of Borders Group, Inc. fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information
contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Borders Group, Inc.

Date: May 27, 2004

/s/ EDWARD W. WILHELM
-----------------------------------------------
Edward W. Wilhelm
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Borders Group, Inc.

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Borders Group,
Inc. and will be retained by Borders Group, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

ESCO LEWIS BLAYLOCK , III, ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) No. 3:22-CV-00627-N (BH) 

 ) 

DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT ) 

 Defendant. ) Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections 

thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion 

that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the 

Findings and Conclusions of the Court. By separate judgment, the plaintiff’s claims will be 

DISMISSED. 

SIGNED this 28th day of July, 2023. 

 ____________________________________________ 

 DAVID C. GODBEY 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00627-N-BH Document 11 Filed 07/28/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 43
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the annual
period ended December 31, 2006 (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 the Company.
 By:
Name:
    
    /s/ Robert W. Zack

Robert W. ZackTitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    March 23, 2007
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 21, 2020.

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, September 21, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21I0045. JENNIFER FOLEY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF 

REBECCA FOLEY et al. v. MARSH COVE APARTMENTS, LLC et al.

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

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

STCV190002
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD, 

Plaintiff,

v.

BATTLE BEAVER, LLC,

 Defendant.

Case No.: 3:22-CV-00686-X

Hon. Brantley Starr

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND REQUEST FOR NOTICE

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that J. Benjamin King of the law firm of Reid Collins & Tsai 

LLP, 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4200, Dallas, Texas 75201, hereby appears as counsel of record for 

Defendant Battle Beaver, LLC in this case. Mr. King certifies that he is admitted or otherwise 

authorized to practice in this Court and enters this appearance to receive service of all pleadings, 

notices, orders, and other papers in the above-captioned matter on behalf of Defendant as follows:

J. Benjamin King

bking@reidcollins.com

Texas State Bar No. 24046217

REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP

1601 Elm Street, Suite 4200

Dallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: (214) 420-8902

Facsimile: (214) 420-8909

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 12 Filed 04/13/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 415
DATED: April 13, 2022

/s/ J. Benjamin King

William T. Reid, IV (TX No. 00788817)

wreid@reidcollins.com

Gregory S. Schwegmann (admission pending)

gschwegmann@reidcollins.com

Jeremy H. Wells (admission pending)

jwells@rctlegal.com

REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP

1301 S Capital of Texas Hwy 

Building C, Suite 300

Austin, Texas 78746

T: 512.647.6100

F: 512.647.6129

J. Benjamin King (TX No. 24046217)

bking@reidcollins.com

REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP

1601 Elm Street, Suite 4200

Dallas, Texas 75201

T: 214.420.8902

F: 214.420.8909

Counsel for Defendant Battle Beaver, LLC

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 12 Filed 04/13/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 416
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on April 13, 2022, the foregoing document was filed electronically 

via the Court’s ECF System, which effects service upon counsel of record.

/s/ Jeremy H. Wells

Jeremy H. Wells

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 12 Filed 04/13/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 417
#### OLLIS v. STATE.

No. 26357.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 8, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Driving while intoxicated upon a public highway is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $100 and 10 days in jail.

This record contains neither a statement of facts nor bills of exception, presenting, therefore, nothing for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court
#### Ex parte CANAVAN.

No. 22993.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 18, 1944.

Samuel K. Wasaff, of El Paso, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of El Paso County remanding appellant to the custody of the Sheriff of El Paso County, who held appellant in custody by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by reason of a felony indictment.

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

No error is apparent from the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
#### James DAVIS et al., Appellants, v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY CARMEN OF AMERICA, Local 783, et al., Appellees.

No. 12716.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

Dec. 2, 1954.

Dent, Ford, King & Wickliff, Roberson L. King, Houston, for appellants.

Bannon & Bannon, A. J. Bannon, Houston, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants have filed herein their motion for leave to file their motion for rehearing in this cause received by our Clerk'on November 6, 1954. The envelope in which the motion was received bears a Houston, Texas, postmark: “November 5, 1954, 12:30 p. m.”

Rule 458, T.R.C.P., provides a motion for rehearing must be filed within 15 days from the date of the judgment. Our judgment affirming the judgment of the court below was rendered on October 21, 1954. Under this rule appellants should have filed their *939motion for rehearing on or before November 5, 1954.

Rule 5, T.R.C.P., in part, provides: “* * * provided, however, if a motion for new trial, motion for rehearing, any matter relating to taking an appeal or writ of error from the trial court to any higher court, or application for writ of error is sent to the proper clerk by first-class United States mail in an envelope or wrapper properly addressed and stamped and is deposited in the mail one day or more before the last day for filing same, *and the envelope or wrapper containing same bears a postmark showing such*deposit, the same, if received by the clerk not more than ten days tardily, shall be filed by the clerk and be deemed filed in time.” (Emphasis supplied.)

The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that these two rules are mandatory. Hence it is deemed unnecessary to cite authority so holding.

The provision' of Rule 5 quoted above contains four mandatory requirements, all of which must be complied with before a motion for rehearing, received after the time provided in Rule 458 has expired, can be filed, to-wit: (1) it must be sent by first class United States mail; (2) it must be properly addressed and stamped; (3) it must be deposited in the mail one day or more before the last day for filing same; and (4) the envelope or wrapper containing the same must bear a postmark showing such deposit.

The envelope containing the motion for rehearing clearly shows the first two requirements to have been complied with. As to the third requirement, counsel for appellants claim in their motion for leave to file that on November 4, 1954, they duly deposited their motion for rehearing in the mail box just outside of the building in which they have their office, and that in due course the motion should have been picked up by the postal authorities and postmarked on November 4th.

But appellants fail to show why the 4th requirement may be disregarded. From the foregoing it appears we' have no alternative but to refuse appellants’ motion for leave to file because the envelope in which the motion was mailed does not bear a postmark of one day or more before the last day for filng the same in this Court.

Motion refused.
Exhibit
32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 The
undersigned, Thomas C. Shields, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of ANADIGICS, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Quarterly
Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 29, 2008 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated:
April 28, 2008
 By:
                /s/
      Thomas C. ShieldsThomas
      C. ShieldsExecutive
      Vice President and
      Chief Financial Officer
 
  This
certification shall not be deemed to be “filed” for the purpose of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be incorporated by
reference into any registration statement filed under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as being incorporated
by reference.
 
 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 ANADIGICS, Inc. and will be retained by
ANADIGICS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.