alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States District Court

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §
§
v. § CRIMINAL NO. 3:04-CR-114-S
§ CRIMINAL NO, 3:19-CR-202-S
ALPHONZO DRAWHORN §

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 be committed
to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of six months on each case,
with the sentences to run concurrently, Defendant will receive credit for time served in federal
custody prior to revocation. No term of supervised release to follow.

The Court recommends that Defendant be allowed to serve his sentence at FMC Seagoville,
if appropriate.
SO ORDERED.

SIGNED December_4C} 2019. ALihul C
a eH Se

KAREN GREN SCHOLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:04-cv-00299-N Document 8 Filed 08/13/04 Page 1 of 3 PageID 81
Case 3:04-cv-00299-N Document 8 Filed 08/13/04 Page 2 of 3 PageID 82
Case 3:04-cv-00299-N Document 8 Filed 08/13/04 Page 3 of 3 PageID 83
EXHIBIT 32.4

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Annual Report of Metals USA, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the
Periodic Report), I, Robert C. McPherson, III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | To my knowledge, the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |                                                  
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 20, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert C. McPherson, III                     
|                         |  |  |  | Robert C. McPherson, III                         
|                         |  |  |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Act and
is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement.

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 13.2





PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In connection with this Annual Report of Golden State Petro (IOM I-B) PLC (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kate Blankenship, 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 results of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date: June 18, 2010







/s/ Kate Blankenship


Kate Blankenship


Principal Financial Officer
Case 5:04-cr-00050-C Document 33 Filed 10/11/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID 79
Case 5:04-cr-00050-C Document 33 Filed 10/11/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID 80
Case 5:04-cr-00050-C Document 33 Filed 10/11/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID 81
Case 5:04-cr-00050-C Document 33 Filed 10/11/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID 82
Case 5:04-cr-00050-C Document 33 Filed 10/11/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID 83
Case 5:04-cr-00050-C Document 33 Filed 10/11/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID 84
# C_2018408EN.01001501.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 — Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France SAS v European Commission

(Case C-98/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for smart card chips - Network of bilateral contacts - Exchanges of commercially sensitive information - Restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Single and continuous infringement - Participation in the infringement and awareness, by a participant in some of the bilateral contacts, of the other bilateral contacts - Judicial review))

(2018/C 408/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France SAS (represented by: J.K. de Pree, A.M. ter Haar and T.M. Snoep, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, A. Dawes and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Koninklijke Philips NV and Philips France SAS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Koninklijke Philips NV and Philips France SAS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 9, 2015

a0831 

# Order

Clerk September 9, 2015

150020(20)(21)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150020

COA: 321553

Kent CC: 09

- 001515

- FC

GEORGE MICHAEL GRESHAM,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to stay proceedings and hold motion in

abeyance is DENIED. The motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 28, 2015

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
#### M. L. Pelt, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division A.

Decision Filed January 4, 1928.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein and briefs and argument of counsel having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now adivsed of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is therefore, considered, ordered, and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court *1184be, and the same is hereby affirmed, upon the authority of Hunter v. The State, 85 Fla. 91, 95 So. 115.

*Wm. C. Hodges,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred H. Davis,*Attorney General; *Boy Campbell,*Assistant, for State.

Affirmed.
Ernest WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Bob GUALTIERI, Sheriff, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1461

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred.
TRUSTEE’S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS REGARDING WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL—Page 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

In re: 

GOODMAN NETWORKS, INC., 

 Debtor. 

SCOTT M. SEIDEL, TRUSTEE, et. al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JAMES FRINZI, et. al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 22-31641-mvl-7 

(Chapter 7) 

ADVERSARY PROCEEDING 

NO: 23-03036 

ADVERSARY PROCEEDING 

NO: 23-03072 

ADVERSARY PROCEEDING 

NO: 23-03090 

TRUSTEE’S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS REGARDING 

WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL 

 COMES NOW Scott M. Seidel (the “Trustee”), the trustee of Goodman Networks, Inc. and 

the plaintiff in each of the above-styled and numbered adversary proceedings (the “Adversary 

Proceedings”), and files this his Reservation of Rights with respect to the Unopposed Motion to 

Withdraw as Counsel of Record (the “Motion”), filed by Wick Phillips Gould & Martin, LLP 

(“Wick Phillips”), as follows: 

1. The Trustee does not oppose the relief requested in the Motion. 

2. Prior to the withdrawal of Wick Phillips, the Trustee served outstanding discovery 

on James Frinzi in each of these Adversary Proceedings, as well as prior and outstanding discovery 

on the Frinzi Family Trust and Multiband Global Resources, LLC in Adversary Proceeding No. 

23-03036. 

3. For the avoidance of doubt and to avoid any possible confusion, the Trustee informs 

Mr. Frinzi, Frinzi Family Trust, and Multiband Global Resources, LLC that said discovery remains 

Case 23-03036-mvl Doc 71 Filed 04/29/24 Entered 04/29/24 14:20:00 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
 

TRUSTEE’S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS REGARDING WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL—Page 2 

outstanding and is to be properly responded to and complied with; the Trustee has not been asked 

to agree, and has not agreed, to any postponement of any such discovery; the Trustee will resist 

any such postponement based on the possibility of replacement counsel; and Mr. Frinzi and the 

remaining defendants have ongoing duties and obligations to comply with scheduling orders and 

supplement previous discovery responses. 

4. The Trustee intends to hold Mr. Frinzi and the remaining defendants to their duties 

and to seek all appropriate and applicable relief should there by any defaults, notwithstanding the 

withdrawal of Wick Phillips. 

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29th day of April, 2024. 

MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR P.C. 

/s/ Davor Rukavina 

Davor Rukavina, Esq. 

Texas Bar No. 24030781 

500 North Akard St., Ste. 3800 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

Telephone: (214) 855-7500 

drukavina@munsch.com

jvasek@munsch.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 The undersigned hereby certifies that, on this the 29th day of April, 2024, true and correct 

copies of this document were electronically served by the Court’s ECF system on parties entitled 

to notice thereof. 

/s/ Davor Rukavina 

Davor Rukavina, Esq. 

4894-6023-7242v.1 013229.00016 

Case 23-03036-mvl Doc 71 Filed 04/29/24 Entered 04/29/24 14:20:00 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
# C_2016343EN.01004302.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/43

---

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Galletas Gullon v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (shape of a package)

(Case T-418/16)

(2016/C 343/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Galletas Gullon, SA (Aguilar de Campoo, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: O2 Holdings Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: tridimensional mark (shape of a package) — EU trade mark No 3 417 847

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 in Case R 1614/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
January 11, 1977 

The Honorable Gene Knize 

County Attorney 

Ellis County 

Waxahachie, Texas 75165 

Opinion No. H-922 

He: Authority of a 

commissioners court to 

reduce the salary of the 

secretary to the county 

attorney. 

Dear Mr. Knize: 

You have requested our opinion regarding the authority 

of the Commisssioners Court of Ellis County to reduce the 

salary of the county attorney's secretary. On August 27, 

1976, the commissioners court approved "amended salary 

classifications" for fiscal 1977. Included therein was a 

salary increase which the county attorney had requested for 

his secretary. On November 19, 1976, the commissioners 

court approved a new salary schedule,~effective December 1, 

1976. The new schedule reduced the salary of the county 

attorney's secretary to its pre-September 1 level. The 

county attorney had not requested the decrease. 

Article 332a, V.T.C.S., provides that 

salaries of assistant prosecuting attorneys, 

investigators, secretaries and other office 

personnel shall be fixed by the prosecuting 

attorney, subject to the approval of the 

commissioners court of the county or the 

counties composing the district. Sec. 5. 

"Prosecuting attorney" is defined to include county attorneys. 

Sec. 1. In Attorney General Opinion H-908 (1976), we held that a 

commissioners court was authorized to refuse approval of 

salaries proposed by a prosecuting attorney pursuant to 

article 332a. We indicated, however, that the prosecuting 

attorney was responsible for initially setting the salaries. 

In our opinion, while the commissioners court may reject 

any salary proposal submitted by a prosecuting attorney, 

it may not itself fix that salary. 

P. 3864 
The Honorable Gene Knize - page 2 (H-922) 

It would appear that the Commissioners Court of Ellis 

County, by virtue of its November 19 order, has attempted 

to fix a new salary for the county attorney's secretary. 

Under the terms prescribed by article 332a, only the county 

attorney may set the salary of his secretary. Unless and 

until he proposes a salary change to the commissioners 

court, his secretary's salary cannot be altered. Accordingly, 

under the facts you have presented it is our opinion that 

the Commissioners Court of Ellis County was without authority 

to reduce the salary of the county attorney's secretary from 

that set by the county attorney and approved by the 

commissioners court on August 27, 1976. 

SUMMARY 

Pursuant to article 332a, V.T.C.S., a 

commissioners court may not set the salary 

of the county attorney's secretary. Its 

authority thereunder is limited to 

approval or disapproval of the salary fixed 

by the county attorney. 

Vfiy truly yours, 

APPROVED: 

ttorney General of Texas 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

jwb 

P. 3865
Certification of Principal Financial Officer
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Calamos Asset Management, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ Cristina WasiakCristina WasiakChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.5.1

 

First Amendment to Employment Agreement

 

FIRST AMENDMENT, dated as of, and effective, October 3, 2016 (this “Amendment”), to the Employment Agreement dated as of August 3, 2016 (the “Agreement”) by and between Quality Care Properties, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”) and Mark Ordan (the “Executive”).

 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement in certain respects; and agree that all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall otherwise remain in place, except as expressly amended herein.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties do hereby agree as follows, effective as of the date set forth below:

 

1.                                    Section 3(c) of the Agreement is amended to delete the phrase “and the purchase of Warrants” from footnote 1.

 

2.                                    Section 3(e) of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following text:

 

“Completion Bonus. The Compensation Committee, following completion of the Spin, will determine the amount of the completion bonus, if any, that will be payable to the Executive, and the terms and conditions of such completion bonus.”

 

3.                                    Section 3(f) of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the phrase “Intentionally Omitted”.

 

4.                                    Exhibit D of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the phrase “Intentionally Omitted”.

 

5.                                    This Amendment shall be construed and regulated in all respects under the laws of the State of Maryland without reference to principles of conflict of laws.

 

6.                                    This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be a duplicate original, but all of which, taken together, shall constitute a single instrument.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed and delivered as of the date written first above.

 

	
 
    	
Quality   Care Properties, Inc.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Troy E. McHenry
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:   Troy E. McHenry
    
	
 
    	
Title:   Executive Vice President
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Mark Ordan
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Mark Ordan
Brandon FRAZIER v. Maranda C. FRAZIER

2160195

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         254,625
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,581
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               468,147
<PP&E>                                      11,041,014
<DEPRECIATION>                                  64,695
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,751,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          307,380
<BONDS>                                      4,284,317
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,159,975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,751,672
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               769,863
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               463,595
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             157,156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 16,640
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   132,472
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33


</TABLE>
Christopher LEHNING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3236

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 20, 2019

Affirmed.