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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 1

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIMOTHY LYNCH BARTON

CARNEGIE DEVELOPMENT, LLC

WALL007, LLC

WALL009, LLC

WALL010, LLC

WALL011, LLC

WALL012, LLC

WALL016, LLC

WALL017, LLC

WALL018, LLC

WALL019, LLC

HAOQIANG FU (a/k/a MICHAEL FU)

STEPHEN T. WALL

Defendants,

DJD LAND PARTNERS, LLC

LDG001, LLC

Relief Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 3:22-CV-2118-X

Jury Trial Demanded

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

The undersigned counsel, under N.D. LOC. R. 83.12, move to withdraw as counsel for 

defendant Timothy Lynch Barton, and would show the Court as follows:

I.

The undersigned counsel wishes to withdraw for financial reasons. A substitution of 

counsel is unnecessary since other counsel for Barton have made appearances in this case. The 

undersigned counsel has played a limited role in the matter assisting lead counsel in the case. 

Case 3:22-cv-02118-X Document 147 Filed 02/02/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 3421
2

Under these circumstances, the withdrawal should have no impact on this case. Based on the 

foregoing, the undersigned counsel respectfully requests that the Court order the undersigned 

counsel, Richard B. Roper, Javan Porter and Holland & Knight, LLP be withdrawn as counsel 

for defendant Timothy Lynch Barton. 

Respectfully submitted:

/s/ Richard B. Roper

Richard B. Roper

State Bar No. 17233700

richard.roper@hklaw.com

Javan Porter 

State Bar No. 24116912 

javan.porter@hklaw.com

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500 

Dallas, Texas 75201

Phone: (214) 969-1345

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I have communicated with SEC counsel Keefe Bernstein, Receiver Counsel Charlene 

Koonce and codefendant counsel Mike Heiskell who indicated that, on behalf of their respective 

clients they do not oppose this instant motion.

/s/ Richard B. Roper

Richard B. Roper

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On February 2, 2023, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the clerk of 

the court of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing 

system of the court. I hereby certify that I have served the all counsel of record electronically or 

by another manner authorized by rule. 

/s/ Richard B. Roper

Richard B. Roper

Case 3:22-cv-02118-X Document 147 Filed 02/02/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 3422
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00055-Z-BR

§

JAVIER GARAY, JR (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

JAVIER GARAY, JR (1), 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 1 of the Superseding 

Information. After cautioning and examining JAVIER GARAY, JR (1) 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 JAVIER GARAY, JR (1) be adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 

841(b)(1)(D) - POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE MARIHUANA 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: October 3, 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-00055-Z-BR Document 76 Filed 10/03/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 182
Agenda – August 2012 Refunding 

Treasury Dealer Meetings – July 26-27, 2012 

Dealer ___________________ 

To allow more time for discussion, please e-mail your responses prior to 12:00 PM on Monday, July 23, 

2012 to Debt.Management@treasury.gov and Sean.Savage@ny.frb.org. Even if you are not scheduled to 

meet with Treasury officials this quarter, your responses are still appreciated. 

I. Marketable Borrowing Estimates 

 Central 

Estimate 

Range that would not 

surprise you 

 Low/High 

 July – September 2012 / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

 October – December 2012 / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

 FY 2012 Total Net Marketable Borrowing 

 FY 2013 Total Net Marketable Borrowing / 

 FY 2014 Total Net Marketable Borrowing / 

 

II. Budget Deficit and Growth Estimates 

 FY 2012 / 

 FY 2013 / 

 FY 2014 / 

 Real GDP(4Q/4Q YoY % Chg) CY2012 

 Real GDP(4Q/4Q YoY % Chg) CY2013 

 Nominal GDP(4Q/4Q YoY % Chg) CY2012 

 Nominal GDP(4Q/4Q YoY % Chg) CY2013 

 

III. Quarterly Note and Bond Issuance Estimates 

 3-year note (Aug/Sep/Oct) / / / / - / / 

 10-year note (Aug) / 

 10-year note reopening (Sep/Oct) / / - / 

 30-year bond (Aug) / 

 30-year bond reopening (Sep/Oct) / 

 2-year note (Aug/Sep/Oct) / / / / - / / 

 5-year note (Aug/Sep/Oct) / / / / - / / 

 7-year note (Aug/Sep/Oct) / / / / - / / 

 5-year TIPS reopening (Aug) 

 10-year TIPS reopening (Sep) 

 30-year TIPS reopening (Oct) 

 

IV. Bill Issuance Estimates 

 52-week bill size (Aug/Sep/Oct) / / / / - / / 

 Total change in bills outstanding 8/12-10/12 / 

 Total change in bills outstanding FY 2012 / 

 CMB issuance Aug ‘12 – Oct ‘12 (size/date) / / / / 

Discussion Topics

1. Please discuss your latest economic and fiscal forecasts for FY2013 and FY2014. Do 

you believe the current auction schedule is well-suited to meet Treasury’s expected 

financing needs? What adjustments, if any, would you recommend? 

2. Please comment on the drivers of supply and demand in the short-end of the Treasury 

cash and financing markets. Please discuss the factors that have led to the recent elevated 

levels of repo rates relative to other comparable short-term rates.

3. Please discuss how Treasury auction dynamics have evolved over the last several years.
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 282

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding

federally-mandated expenditures.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 26, 1993

Mr. GILLMOR introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States regarding federally-mandated expenditures.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

•HJ 282 IH

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE —

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. The Congress shall not enact any provi5 sion of law that has the effect of requiring any State or

6 local government to expend non-Federal funds to comply

7 with any Federal law unless the Congress reimburses the

8 State or local government for the non-Federal funds ex9 pended to comply with that Federal law.

10 ‘‘SECTION 2. Section 1 shall not prohibit the Con11 gress from enacting a provision of law that permits a State

12 or local government to choose to expend non-Federal funds

13 in order to receive Federal funds.

14 ‘‘SECTION 3. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect five

15 years after the ratification of this article.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         138,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,162,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (120,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 29,049,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,194,000
<PP&E>                                       8,763,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,713,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,406,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,824,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,153,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                42,406,000
<SALES>                                     17,174,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,174,000
<CGS>                                       11,784,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,784,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,336,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             416,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,670,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   684,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   986,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Sanjit Biswas, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Samsara Inc. for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2022 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Samsara Inc.


Date:March 30, 2022By:/s/ Sanjit BiswasSanjit BiswasChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

#### **CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**SECTION 906 OF THESARBINES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Phoenix Gold International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph K. O’Brien,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Joseph K. O’Brien |   |
|--------|----------------------------|--------|
|   | Joseph K. O’Brien     |
|   | Chief Financial Officer    |
|   | February 12, 2003          |

 

----
#### Eliza HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 22832.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 16, 1944.

Russell F. Wolters, of Houston, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of murder with malice, and her punishment assessed at ten years’ confinement in the State Penitentiary.

Since the filing of the record in this court, the appellant has presented a written motion, duly verified, stating that she no longer desires to prosecute the appeal and requesting that the same be dismissed. The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
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.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. 50-400-LA; ASLBP No. 99-762-02-LA; November 9, 2000]

Before Administrative Judges: 

G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman 

Dr. Peter S. Lam 

Thomas D. Murphy 

In the Matter of Carolina Power & Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) 

                    In accordance with the Licensing Board's memorandum and order of August 28, 2000, the Board will hold the 10 CFR 2.1113 argument regarding the parties' written summaries on intervenor Board of Commissioners of Orange County's (BCOC) contention EC-6, Environmental Impact Statement Required, on                     *Thursday, December 7, 2000, beginning at 9:30 a.m. EST, in the Jane S. McKimmon Conference Center, North Carolina State University, corner of Gorman Street and Western Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina.*                    The procedures applicable to this oral argument will be the same as those used for the January 2000 oral argument.                     *See*                     Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Subpart K Oral Argument Procedures) (Jan. 13, 2000) at 1-3 (unpublished).                 

                    At this juncture, it is the Board's intent that this oral argument will be open to the public. If, in submitting written summaries, any of the parties utilize proprietary or other nonpublic information, the parties should be prepared to advise the Board whether that information will be discussed during, or otherwise be a part of, the oral argument.                     *See id.*                     at 5.                

Rockville, Maryland, November 9, 2000. 

                        For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board [*] 

G. Paul Bollwerk, III, 

Administrative Judge.

# Footnotes

*.                                 Copies of this notice were sent this date by Internet e-mail transmission to counsel for (1) applicant Carolina Power and Light Company; (2) intervenor BCOC; and (3) the NRC staff.                        
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 00-29381 Filed 11-15-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40427

USDC No. G-96-CV-710

 

LUIS A. AGUILAR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HECTOR GARCIA; JOHN FLORES; JEFFREY MILSTEEN;

DONNA KLIGAR; WILLIAM WILKINS; JAMES BISSETT,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

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

December 18, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Luis Aguilar seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)

from this court following the magistrate judge’s denial of leave

to proceed IFP and certification that Aguilar’s appeal would not

be taken in good faith. Aguilar seeks a transcript of his

pretrial hearing at government expense; his transcript motion is

DENIED. He seeks appointment of counsel on appeal; his motion is

DENIED. 

Aguilar contends that the magistrate judge erred by denying
his motion for appointment of counsel. He argues that he was

psychologically incapable of prosecuting his case pro se and that 

the magistrate judge erred by denying his requests to subpoena 

expert psychiatric witnesses to testify about his mental state. 

He argues that the magistrate judge erred by failing to order the

Galveston County Jail to furnish the names and addresses of all

of the psychiatrists who had seen him while he was in the custody

of the County. He alleges that he was indigent during the trial

of his case and that he unsuccessfully attempted to employ

private counsel. Aguilar contends that the magistrate judge

erred by denying his request for an expert witness in the field

of document forgery.

We have reviewed Aguilar’s IFP motion and the record on

appeal and we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 

Regarding Aguilar’s requests that two psychiatrists by subpoenaed

as expert witnesses and that a psychiatric expert and a forgery

expert be appointed, the district court was not authorized to pay

expert witness fees. Pedraza v. Jones, 71 F.3d 194, 196 (5th

Cir. 1995). Regarding Aguilar’s remaining contentions, we affirm

the bad-faith certification and deny Aguilar’s IFP motion for

essentially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Aguilar

v. Garcia, No. G-96-CV-710 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 1998).

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
# Official Journal L 394/30 D

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 394 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4930 December 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 394

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4930 December 2006

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Regulation (EC) No 1891/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on multiannual funding for the action of the European Maritime Safety Agency in the field of response to pollution caused by ships and amending Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002
   (1) | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

*

Regulation (EC) No 1891/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on multiannual funding for the action of the European Maritime Safety Agency in the field of response to pollution caused by ships and amending Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002
   (1)

1

| | | II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | European Parliament and Council |
| | * | Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on transnational mobility within the Community for education and training purposes: European Quality Charter for Mobility
   (1) | 5 |
| | * | Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning | 10 |

II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory

European Parliament and Council

*

Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on transnational mobility within the Community for education and training purposes: European Quality Charter for Mobility
   (1)

5

*

Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning

10

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

and 

BLACKHAWK MANUFACTURING GROUP, 

INC., 

Intervenor-Plaintiff, 

v. 

MERRICK GARLAND, in his official 

capacity as Attorney General of the United States; 

et al., 

Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00691-O 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO STAY DEADLINES 

 Before the Court is a motion to stay the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 deadline filed 

by Plaintiffs Jennifer VanDerStok; Michael G. Andren; Tactical Machining, LLC; and Firearms 

Policy Coalition, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”). Defendants do not oppose the Motion. 

 Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Stay Deadline, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. 

 It is further ORDERED that the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a Rule 54 motion for costs 

and attorneys’ fees is stayed until 14 days after the final resolution of Defendants’ appeal from this 

Court's judgment. ECF Nos. 231, 234. 

Signed this _______________, 2023. 

 

 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE REED O’CONNOR 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 235-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 4821