alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANGELO DIVISION

FIRST SONORA BANCSHARES, INC, §

 §

Plaintiffs, § 

 § 

v. § Civil Action No. 6:22-CV-00018-H-BU

 §

THE CHARTER OAK FIRE §

INSURANCE CO., §

 § 

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Now before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Remand this action to state 

court Dkt. No. 5. Through the motion, the parties request that the Court enter an order 

remanding this cause to the 340th District Court of Tom Green County, Texas, because the 

parties stipulate that the amount in controversy is less than $75,000. Id. at 1‒2.

This case was referred to the undersigned for pretrial management with instructions 

to submit a report and recommendation on dispositive motions under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B). Dkt. No. 3. “[A] motion to remand is a dispositive mater on which a 

magistrate judge should enter a recommendation to the district court subject to de novo 

review.” Davidson v. Georgia-Pacific, L.L.C., 819 F.3d 758, 765 (5th Cir. 2016). 

After reviewing the parties’ Joint Motion and the applicable law, the undersigned 

finds that a hearing on this motion is unnecessary and recommends that the parties’ Joint

Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 5) be GRANTED.

Case 6:22-cv-00018-H-BU Document 6 Filed 04/19/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 52
2

Typically, parties are afforded fourteen days to serve and file written objections to 

a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations. Here that appears to be 

unnecessary as the undersigned recommends granting the relief jointly requested by the 

parties. For this reason, the parties are directed to file no later than April 21, 2022, either 

a joint notice or separate notices indicating whether they waive the fourteen-day objection 

period and consent to the immediate acceptance by the Court of this recommendation.

If any party wishes to object to any part of these Findings, Conclusions, and 

Recommendation, the party must file specific written objections within fourteen days after 

being served with a copy of these Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2017); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). To be specific, an objection must identify 

the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the 

objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and 

Recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely 

incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not 

specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from 

appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are 

accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass 

v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

SO ORDERED this 19th day of April, 2022.

_____________________________________

JOHN R. PARKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:22-cv-00018-H-BU Document 6 Filed 04/19/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 53
<PAGE>
 
                                                            EXHIBIT 11.2

                                  PSINET INC.

CALCULATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES USED
                          IN CALCULATION  (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                 NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                 SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
                                                                 -------------------
<S>                                                              <C> 
Weighted average shares outstanding:                            
Common stock:
     Shares outstanding at beginning of period.................        40,477,786
     Weighted average shares issued during the nine months      
     ended September 30, 1998 (11,312,554 shares)..............         8,642,483
                                                                    -------------
                                                                       49,120,269
                                                                    =============
Net loss to common shareholders................................     $(132,384,000)
                                                                    =============
Basic and diluted loss per share...............................     $       (2.70)
                                                                    =============

====================================================================================
</TABLE>
16510075 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 

RECEH!ED 

JUL 1 5 2013 

Placer County Air Pollutioll 

Control District 

The above space Is reserved for Court/County Filed Date Stamp 

PROOF OF PUBLICATION 

(2015.5 C.C.P.) 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

County of Placer 

I am a citizen of the United States and employed by a publication . 

in the County aforesaid. I am over the age of eighteen years, and 

not a party to the mentioned matter. I am the principal clerk of 

The Auburn Journal, a newspaper of general circulation, in the 

City of Auburn, which is printed and published in the County of 

Placer. This newspaper has been judged a newspaper of 

general circulation by the Superior Court of the State of 

California, in and for the County of Placer, on the date of May 

26, 1952 (Case Number 17407}. The notice, of which the 

atteched is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil} 

has been published in each regular and entire issue of said 

newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following 

dates, to-wit: 

JULY7 

I certify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and 

correct. 

Dated in Auburn, California 

JULY 7,2013 

PROOF OF PUBLICATION 

THE AUBURN JOURNAL 

1030 High Street 

Auburn, CA 95604-5910
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.72
                                   AMENDMENT 5

                         to Sponsored Research Agreement


This Amendment ("Amendment 5") to the Sponsored Research Agreement
("Agreement"), effective July 1, 1997, by and between National Jewish Medical
and Research Center ("National Jewish") and Aeolus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Sponsor"), shall be effective as of July 1, 2001. The Agreement was previously
amended by Amendment 1, which was effective as of July 1, 1998, by Amendment 2,
which was effective as of July 1, 1999, by Amendment 3, which was effective as
of May 19, 2000 and Amendment 4, which was effective as of December 1, 2000.

The parties agree to modify the Agreement as follows, all other terms of the
Agreement shall remain effective.

Paragraph 4 of the Agreement is replaced in its entirety by the following.

4.       Payment of Costs
         ----------------

         In consideration of National Jewish's performance hereunder, Sponsor
agrees to support National Jewish's costs incurred in performance of the
research in an amount not to exceed $400,000 for the period from July 1, 1997
through June 30, 1998; $400,000 for the period from July 1, 1998 through June
30, 1999; $375,000 for the period from July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2001, and
$100,000 for the period from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002, which amount
shall not be exceeded unless mutually agreed upon in writing by Sponsor and
National Jewish. Sponsor shall make payments to National Jewish according to the
following schedule. During the period from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002,
Sponsor shall pay $25,000 on July 5, 2001, October 5, 2001, January 5, 2002 and
April 5, 2002. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the amount of future payments may
be changed upon mutual agreement by Sponsor and National Jewish.

REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

                                       1
<PAGE>

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to the
Agreement, and hereby reaffirm all other provisions of the Agreement, by their
duly authorized officers or representatives.

NATIONAL JEWISH MEDICAL AND                 AEOLUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
   RESEARCH CENTER


By:                                         By:
    ----------------------------               ---------------------------------

Name: Diane M. Sullivan                     Name: Clayton I. Duncan
      -------------------------                   ------------------------------

Title: Director, Research Admin.            Title: President & CEO
       -------------------------                   -----------------------------

Date: 7/10/01                               Date: July 17, 2001
      --------------------------                  ------------------------------



PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

By:
    -------------------------------------------------
    Dr. James D. Crapo

Title: Principal Investigator
       ----------------------------------------------

Date: 6/26/01
      -----------------------------------------------


                                       2
|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                               
|View History: Annual                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                         
|View History:                                                                
|                                                                             
|Washington Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                             
|                                                                             
|Washington Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 8      | 7      | 7      | 7      | 7      | 7      | 7      | 7     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 7      | 7      | 7      | 7      | 7      | 7      | NA     | 7      | NA     | 6     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 6      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
PAGE 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

JORGE SANCHEZ

Defendant

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

NO. 3:22-CR-108-K

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court referred the request for revocation of Defendant’s Supervised Release 

to United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford for consideration. The Court 

has received the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to its order. Defendant having waived allocution before this Court as well as 

his right to object to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 

Judge, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate 

Judge are correct.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is ADOPTED as 

the opinion and findings of the Court. It is further ORDERED that the Defendant’s 

conditions of release are modified to attend in-patient drug treatment and continue on 

Supervised Release after in-patient treatment has ended. 

SO ORDERED.

Signed June 22nd, 2022.

_______________________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cr-00108-K Document 26 Filed 06/22/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 289
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 17, 2016

No. 04-16-00512-CV

IPSECURE INC.,

Appellant

v.

James CARRALES,

Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-02257

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee's motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of October, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Case 3:95-cv-01648-D Document 320 Filed 08/31/00 Page 1 of 18 PageID 176
 

 Case 3:95-cv-01648-D Document 320 Filed 08/31/00 Page 2 of 18 PageID 177
 

 Case 3:95-cv-01648-D Document 320 Filed 08/31/00 Page 3 of 18 PageID 178
 

 Case 3:95-cv-01648-D Document 320 Filed 08/31/00 Page 4 of 18 PageID 179
 

 Case 3:95-cv-01648-D Document 320 Filed 08/31/00 Page 5 of 18 PageID 180
 

 Case 3:95-cv-01648-D Document 320 Filed 08/31/00 Page 6 of 18 PageID 181
 

 Case 3:95-cv-01648-D Document 320 Filed 08/31/00 Page 7 of 18 PageID 182
 

 Case 3:95-cv-01648-D Document 320 Filed 08/31/00 Page 8 of 18 PageID 183
 

 Case 3:95-cv-01648-D Document 320 Filed 08/31/00 Page 9 of 18 PageID 184
 

 Case 3:95-cv-01648-D Document 320 Filed 08/31/00 Page 10 of 18 PageID 185
 

 Case 3:95-cv-01648-D Document 320 Filed 08/31/00 Page 11 of 18 PageID 186
 

 Case 3:95-cv-01648-D Document 320 Filed 08/31/00 Page 12 of 18 PageID 187
 

 Case 3:95-cv-01648-D Document 320 Filed 08/31/00 Page 13 of 18 PageID 188
 

 Case 3:95-cv-01648-D Document 320 Filed 08/31/00 Page 14 of 18 PageID 189
 

 Case 3:95-cv-01648-D Document 320 Filed 08/31/00 Page 15 of 18 PageID 190
 

 Case 3:95-cv-01648-D Document 320 Filed 08/31/00 Page 16 of 18 PageID 191
 

 Case 3:95-cv-01648-D Document 320 Filed 08/31/00 Page 17 of 18 PageID 192
 

 Case 3:95-cv-01648-D Document 320 Filed 08/31/00 Page 18 of 18 PageID 193
#### SHEPARD v. STATE.

No. 22050.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 1, 1942.

Howard C. Davison, of Rotan, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

• Appellant was charged with cattle theft, and by the jury convicted and given a sentence of two and one-half years in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exceptions in the record.

The facts are rather peculiar. It is shown that Mr. Baker, the owner of the calf claimed to have been stolen, on the night of the alleged theft, had been drinking rather heavily, and possibly in company with appellant and a companion, W. C. Melton, who was also charged with this same theft. Mr. Baker was the owner of a calf which he kept tied near its mother, which was also staked near Baker’s house, in the town of Rotan. After Mr. Baker had taken a few drinks in the town of Rotan, he went home late in the nighttime, or rather in the early morning hours, and his calf was still tied near the house. Later on, attracted by the lowing of the cow, the calf’s mother, the Baker family was aroused, and upon inspection, it was found that the calf was gone, the rope by which it was tethered being cut with a knife, and after investigation appellant and W. C. Melton were arrested at Sweetwater the next day, and they told where they had secreted such calf, and where they had left the trailer. It was shown that some one in their sock feet had cut the rope with which the calf was tied, and had then driven it on foot for a block or two and loaded it into a trailer, and had taken it to a field belonging to appellant’s father, and there tethered it to a cultivator. Mr. Beker denied having given his consent to appellant or anyone else to take this animal.

Appellant as well as Melton testified that they were drinking pretty heavily on the night in question; that they drank with Baker; that Baker tried at first unsuccessfully, but finally overcame their objections to get them to go and get this animal from his own house and carry it away for him. They finally agreed to do so, in the presence of a witness, and that they were merely obliging Baker, and did not steal this calf. They were afraid of kicking rocks or other things around however when they got near Baker’s home, and thus arousing Mrs. Baker, of whom they seemed to be afraid, so appellant took off his new pair of shoes and went in his sock feet and drove the animal away from the Baker home, some block or so distant, and loaded it in a trailer and drove away with it.

Mr. Baker denied any agreement, or knowledge of any such agreement, with appellant and his companion, or either of them. Thus was formed an issue of fact for the jury’s determination, and they de*531cided the same adversely to appellant’s contention.

We think the facts are sufficient to support such a conclusion.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 28

Expressing the sense of Congress that the stamp commemorating the Oregon

National Historic Trail should be issued in Oregon City, Oregon.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 27, 1993

Mr. KOPETSKI (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. DEFAZIO, and Ms. FURSE) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the stamp commemorating the Oregon National Historic Trail should be issued in Oregon City, Oregon.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That because Oregon City, Oregon, is recog3 nized as the western terminus of the Oregon National His4 toric Trail, it is the sense of Congress that the stamp com5 memorating the Oregon National Historic Trail should be

6 issued in Oregon City, Oregon.

Æ
{"agency":"Treasury","generated":"2021-07-02 18:42:42","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"},{"label":"2019","value":"2019"},{"label":"2020","value":"2020"}],"value":"2021"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q3"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":null}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["BEP","DO","FinCEN","Fiscal Service","IRS","MINT","OCC","TIGTA","TTB"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["15","221","51","52","2197","14","348","58","21"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":[" ","225","62","99","2123","13","404","65","18"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["37","1377","36","23","855","15","74"," ","7"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2021","quarter":"Q3"}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          69,538
<SECURITIES>                                    38,585
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,481
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,200
<INVENTORY>                                        187
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               170,909
<PP&E>                                          37,629
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 273,808
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       204,927
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   273,808
<SALES>                                        137,632
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               137,632
<CGS>                                           21,294
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  109,313
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (2,382)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,407
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,319
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,088
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,088
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14


</TABLE>