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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

 

JACQUETTA L. CLAYTON § 

§ 

VS. § ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-984-P 

§ 

AMAZON § 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Jacquetta L. Clayton’s Motion for the Appointment 

of Counsel [doc. 33], filed September 4, 2023. In Clayton’s Amended Complaint, she alleges

violations pursuant to, inter alia: (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title 

VII”); (2) the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended (“ADEA”);1 and (3) the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (“ADA”). In determining whether 

appointment of counsel pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), is appropriate, a court 

should consider: (1) the merits of the plaintiff's claim; (2) the efforts taken by the plaintiff to obtain 

counsel; and (3) the plaintiff's financial ability to retain counsel.2 See Gonzalez v. Carlin, 907 

F.2d 573, 580 (5th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff is not automatically entitled to the appointment of 

counsel. See Gonzalez, 907 F.2d at 579. Moreover, Plaintiff has the “burden of persuasion with 

regard to the application for appointment of counsel.” Tatum v. Cmty. Bank, 866 F. Supp. 988, 

995 (E.D. Tex. 1994). In addition, as there are no federal funds allocated to the prosecution or 

defense of civil suits, the court must also consider the unfairness of imposing involuntary servitude 

 1“Unlike Title VII cases, courts do not ‘appoint’ counsel in ADEA cases.” See Lampkin v. Tex. 

Dep’t of Public Safety, No. A-12-CV-876-SS, 2013 WL 264541, at *5 n.6 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2013).

 2The ADA states that the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 apply to claims for disability 

discrimination brought under the ADA. Lampkin, 2013 WL 264541, at *5 n.6; see 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a).

Case 4:22-cv-00984-P-BJ Document 42 Filed 09/28/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 179
upon a member of the Bar when the likelihood of success upon the claims appears slight. See

Tatum, 866 F. Supp. at 995. 

After careful consideration of the above factors, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s motion 

should be DENIED. Based on Plaintiff’s motion, the Court does not doubt Plaintiff’s diligent, but 

unsuccessful, efforts in obtaining an attorney to represent her. In addition, while Plaintiff did pay 

the filing fee in this case, the Court is not convinced that Plaintiff can afford to pay for an attorney

based upon information presented prior to Plaintiff paying the filing fee. Nevertheless, the Court 

is not persuaded that the merits of Plaintiff's claims weigh in favor of appointment of counsel. 

Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel 

[doc. 33] is DENIED.

SIGNED September 28, 2023.

____________________________

JEFFREY L. CURETON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00984-P-BJ Document 42 Filed 09/28/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 180
#### MITCHELL v. STATE.

No. 21252.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 13, 1940.

Penn J. Jackson, of Cleburné, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is opposing the arrest of another for a misdemeanor; the punishment, a fine of $25.

The prosecution proceeded under Article 339, P.C., which reads as follows: “If any person shall wilfully oppose or resist an officer in executing or attempting to • execute any lawful warrant for the arrest of another person in a misdemeanor case, or in arresting or attempting -to arrest any person without a warrant, where the law authorizes or requires the arrest’to be made without a warrant;- he shall be fined not less than twenty-five nor more than five hundred dollars,-and if' arms be. used, be fined not less than fifty nor more than one thousand dollars.”

It is averred in the complaint and information, in substance, that appellant opposed the sheriff in his effort to arrest Ed Mitchell. It is. further alleged in the complaint and information that at the time the sheriff attempted to make the arrest Ed Mitchell was drunk in a public place. It is not' averred whether the officer was armed with a warrant or whether he was attempting to make, the arrest without a warrant. *;We*quote from Harless v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 109 S.W. 934, as follows: “Wherever an officer undertakes an arrest of a citizen, it must be in compliance with the authority confided by the law; otherwise, he .has no'right to make the arrest. If it is under and by, *552virtue of a warrant, this matter must be sufficiently pleaded to show his authority and that it is legal, and the fact must be stated, and sufficient facts, also, to show that the offense was one in which he was authorized to arrest by the terms of the law when he was not armed with a warrant.”

It is manifest, under the holding in Harless case, that the complaint and information are insufficient.

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

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.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29245]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice No. 3467]


Shipping Coordinating Committee; Notice of Meeting

    The Shipping Coordinating Committee will conduct an open meeting at 
9:30 a.m. on Thursday, December 14, 2000, in Room 6103 of the U.S. 
Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 2nd Street SW, Washington, DC 20593-
0001. The purpose of the meeting is to finalize preparations for the 
32nd Session of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Sub-
Committee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping, which is scheduled 
for January 22 to 26, 2001, at IMO Headquarters in London. At this 
meeting, papers received and the draft U.S. positions will be 
discussed.
    Among other things, the items of particular interest are:

-- Training and certification of maritime pilots
-- Unlawful practices associated with certificates of competency (i.e., 
forged certificates)
-- Standard Marine Communication Phrases
-- Training in the use of Electronic Chart Display and Information 
Systems
-- Guidance for training in ballast water management
-- Guidance for ships operating in ice-covered waters
-- Validation of an IMO model course on assessment of competence
-- Guidance associated with the International Convention on Standards 
of Training,

    Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel 
Convention, as adopted by the 1995 conference; not yet ratified or in 
force.
    Members of the public may attend the meeting up to the seating 
capacity of the room. Interested persons may seek information by 
writing: LCDR Luke Harden, Commandant (G-MSO-1), U.S. Coast Guard 
Headquarters, Room 1210, 2100 2nd Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001 
or by calling (202) 267-0229.

    Dated: November 8, 2000.
Stephen Miller,
Executive Secretary Shipping Coordinating Committee.
[FR Doc. 00-29245 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-07-P
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                        COMPUTER LEARNING CENTERS, INC.
 
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
            (DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               FOR THE THREE MONTH          FOR THE SIX MONTH
                                              PERIOD ENDED JULY 31,       PERIOD ENDED JULY 31,
                                            -------------------------   -------------------------
                                               1998          1997          1998          1997
                                            -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------
<S>                                         <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
Net income................................  $       862   $     2,078   $     4,005   $     4,321
                                            -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------
Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding -- Basic....................   17,316,398    15,803,130    17,212,195    15,727,588
Dilutive securities:
     Options..............................    1,017,590     1,225,958     1,008,953     1,273,848
Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding -- Diluted..................   18,333,988    17,029,088    18,221,148    17,001,436
Earnings per share:
     Basic................................  $      0.05   $      0.13   $      0.23   $      0.27
                                            ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========
     Diluted..............................  $      0.05   $      0.12   $      0.22   $      0.25
                                            ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========
</TABLE>
 
     Share and per share amounts restated to reflect the January 1998 two for
one stock split and the April 1997 three for two stock split.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RODNEY DEON BETHANY, §

 Petitioner, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-2172-K (BT)

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent.

§

§

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this 

case, and the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge dated October 6, 2022, the Court finds that the Findings and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the 

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Court.

SO ORDERED.

Signed October 25th, 2022.

 ________________________________ 

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-02172-K-BT Document 7 Filed 10/25/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 43
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71121-71122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30411]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy; 
Meeting Notice

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463 as amended), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the 
Steering Subcommittee of the Labor Advisory Committee for Trade 
Negotiations and Trade Policy.

    Date, time and place: December 11, 2000, 10:00 am, U.S. 
Department of Labor, C-5515-Conference Room 1A, 200 Constitution 
Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20210.
    Purpose: The meeting will include a review and discussion of 
current issues which influence U.S. trade policy. Potential U.S. 
negotiating objectives and bargaining positions in current and 
anticipated trade negotiations will be discussed. Pursuant to

[[Page 71122]]

19 U.S.C. 2155(f) it has been determined that the meeting will be 
concerned with matters the disclosure of which would seriously 
compromise the Government's negotiating objectives or bargaining 
positions. Accordingly, the meeting will be closed to the public.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jorge Perez-Lopez, Director, Office of 
International Economic Affairs; Phone: (202) 219-7597.

    Dated: Signed at Washington, DC this 22d day of November, 2000.
MacArthur DeShazer,
Associate Deputy Under Secretary, International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 00-30411 Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-28-M
#### John RANDELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 22187.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 13, 1942.

Bill Miller, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of theft of property of the value of more than $50, and his punishment assessed at two years’ confinement in the State Penitentiary.

The appellant has filed a written application, duly verified by his affidavit, requesting the privilege of withdrawing his appeal. The request is granted and the appeal is ordered dismissed.
**
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No. 333-229140) on Form S-3 and Registration Statements (Nos. 333-224018 and 333-230282) on Form S-8 of Cue Biopharma,Inc. of our report dated March 11, 2020, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Cue Biopharma, Inc. and Subsidiary, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cue Biopharma, Inc. forthe year ended December 31, 2019. 

/s/ RSM US LLP 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 12, 2020 
**
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Urgitano, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered on September 28, 1988, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of 8 to 24 years, 8 years to life and a definite term of one year, respectively, is unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we *281perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER01-414-000]

Take notice that on November 13, 2000, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) tendered for filing the Agreement For Interconnection Service (Agreement), between SCE and Harbor Cogeneration Company (Harbor).

The Agreement specifies the terms and conditions under which SCE will interconnect Harbor's 80,000 kW generating facility with SCE's Harborgen Substation pursuant to SCE's Transmission Owner Tariff.

Copies of this filing were served upon the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California and all interested parties.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214).  All such motions and  protests should  be filed on or December 4, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet  at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-30358 Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### BERRY v. STATE.

No. 21306.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 23, 1940.

No attorney for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State. ' -

GRAVES, Judge.

On a plea of guilty appellant was convicted of forgery, and his punishment assessed by the jury at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The indictment appears to be in proper form. The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
U.S. flag
      An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.
        Here's how you know
      Here's how you know**Official websites use .gov**
            
            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
      **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
            
            A **lock** (
            A locked padlock
            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Menu

      
        close

            
            
                                              About
          Charter
          Legislation
          Members
          Meetings
          Reports & Resources

                            
                                About
          Contact Us
                  Share
FacebookXLinkedInRedditPinterestEmail Home
 Iris McLaurin-Southall
Iris McLaurin-Southall's great passion is meeting needs and moving residents toward greater self-sufficiency. She is Family Services Coordinator, District of Columbia Housing Authority, Office of Resident Services, where she works with Resident Council organizations that represent the 5,000 families that reside in DCHA public housing. For her passionate efforts to make a difference in Greater Washington, DC, she was nominated by the Executive Director as the Agency's 2011 CITYYEAR recipient of the Idealist of Year Award. Her recent signature project, developed for the Office of Resident Services, is a fatherhood initiative called Pathways to Restoration: Helping Custodial/Non-Custodial Fathers Build Healthy Families and Strong Communities. To her role as Family Services Coordinator, Ms. McLaurin-Southall brings more than three decades of community organization and program/project development experience. She holds a bachelor's degree in secondary education from Shaw University, an M.A. in public relations from Ohio State University, and project management certificates from various corporate training programs.
  
Date Created: July 10, 2020
 Top

      Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

        
        
                        Facebook
          
                      X
          
                      YouTube
  

      Secondary Footer link menu
            Accessibility
              Plain Language
              Privacy Policy
              Legal Policies and Disclaimer
              No FEAR Act
              Freedom of Information Act
              USA.gov
              Justice.gov
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 70373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29901]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3307]


State of Hawaii

    As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 
November 9, 2000, I find that the County and Island of Hawaii 
constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by severe storms and 
flooding beginning on October 28, 2000 and continuing through November 
2, 2000. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this 
disaster may be filed until the close of business on January 8, 2001, 
and for loans for economic injury until the close of business on August 
9, 2001 at the address listed below or other locally announced 
locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 4 Office, 
P.O. Box 13795, Sacramento, CA 95853-4795.
    The interest rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
 
  Homeowners with credit available elsewhere.................      7.375
  Homeowners without credit available elsewhere..............      3.687
  Businesses with credit available elsewhere.................      8.000
  Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit           4.000
   available elsewhere.......................................
  Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit          6.750
   available elsewhere.......................................
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without           4.000
   credit available elsewhere................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 330706 
and for economic injury the number is 9J4700.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: November 16, 2000.
Herbert L. Mitchell,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-29901 Filed 11-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-24-00177-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1764504

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

DEXTER RAYSOND JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant has moved to dismiss his appeal. Because we have not yet decided 

this case, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 

43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: July 3, 2024