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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE §

COMMISSION, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1328-L

§

MEGAFUND CORPORATION, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

This is a civil action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) for

alleged violations of the federal securities laws. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the

court in implementation thereof, on February 27, 2006, this action was referred to United States

Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan for pretrial management. On June 2, 2008, the Findings and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. 411) (the “Report”) were filed,

recommending that the court approve the proposed distribution plan set forth in Receiver’s Final

Report and Proposed Distribution Plan (Sardaukar Holdings Receivership Estate) (doc. 387)

(“Receiver’s Final Report”) and grant the fee application set forth in Receiver’s Final Application

to Allow and Pay (1) Receiver’s Fees and Expenses; (2) Attorneys Fees and Expenses; and (3)

Accountants Fees and Expenses (Sardaukar Holdings Receivership Estate) (doc 388). No objections

to the Report were filed.

The court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendation, record, and

applicable law, and finds that the magistrate judge’s findings are correct. They are therefore

accepted as those of the court. Accordingly, the court approves Receiver’s Final Report and
Order – Page 2 

Proposed Distribution Plan (Sardaukar Holdings Receivership Estate), attached with its exhibits as

an exhibit to this order and incorporated herein as if repeated verbatim, and grants the Receiver’s

final application for attorney’s fees and accounting fees as set forth in the Report. Accordingly, the

court orders that the Receiver may pay $22,279.00 in fees and $581.19 in expenses to the law firm

of Quilling Selander Cummiskey & Lownds, P.C. and $7,282.75 in fees to the accounting firm of

Litzler, Segner, Shaw & McKenney, LLP. The court also orders that the Receiver is authorized to

reserve $10,000.00 for legal fees, $7,500.00 for accounting fees, and $1,920.00 for storage costs

from funds available for further distribution for future costs. The court further orders that the

Receiver is authorized to make distributions to claimants in accordance with the schedule attached

as Exhibit “C” to the Receiver’s Final Report and to send a cover letter to each claimant in the form

attached as Exhibit “D” to the Receiver’s Final Report. 

It is so ordered this 24th day of June, 2008.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge
III 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 3 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the lying in state 

of the remains of the late James Earl Carter, Jr., 39th President 

of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mrs. FISCHER) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the 

lying in state of the remains of the late James Earl 

Carter, Jr., 39th President of the United States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. HONORING JAMES EARL CARTER, JR. 

4 (a) LYING IN STATE IN ROTUNDA.—In recognition 

5 of the long and distinguished service rendered to the Na6 tion and to the world by the late James Earl Carter, Jr., 

7 the 39th President of the United States, his remains shall 

8 be permitted to lie in state in the rotunda of the Capitol 

9 from January 7, 2025 until January 9, 2025. The ArchiVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:57 Jan 05, 2025 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SC3.ATS SC3

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 3 ATS 

1 tect of the Capitol, under the direction of the Majority 

2 Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 

3 Representatives, shall take all necessary steps for the ac4 complishment of that purpose. 

5 (b) USE OF CATAFALQUE.—The Architect of the 

6 Capitol is authorized and directed to transfer the cata7 falque which is situated in the Exhibition Hall of the Cap8 itol Visitor Center to the rotunda of the Capitol so that 

9 such catafalque may be used in connection with services 

10 to be conducted there for the late James Earl Carter, Jr., 

11 39th President of the United States. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROBERT G. ROBERSON, #1008416, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) 3:05-CV-0963-P

)

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, )

Institutional Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

After making the independent review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court finds that

the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they

are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED.

Signed this 28 day of June 2005. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00963-P Document 5 Filed 06/29/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 34
Lee ANSLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3232

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Christina PAYLAN, M.D., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0389

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 03, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied.

KELLY, VILLANTI, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
## GENERAL

.. i’ 

## TEWxz

ATTORNEY i, :G’ , OF-rExAs

April 25, 1957
.Honorable Price Daniel. Opfnion ‘No. WW-Ul. mrnor of Texas, . . ” .&&e CapMol, Re: Time aUowedf or the Gover- ~~stln, Texas. nor to act on Bills presented to him after passage by the Dear Governor Daniel: Legislature.

You have asked our office for an opiulon ox the exact time lfmlts whkh the Governor has within which to act upon bills passed wh, ~gt~slature under Article IV, Section 14., of the Texas Con-. w, which provlden as ~olJow5:

11 a.. Xfany bill sbali aat be -s&uried by the Governor with l&3 objeidbns wwlin +en days (Suns

, : ,days.excepted) after .it.shall have been presented &o

h&u. the ssme shall be a law, In I.&e mauner as if he had signed it, unless tbe.Legislatuse. by Its adjournment, prevent its r&urn, .lnwhich case it shall ’ be .a.law.,.anless he shall file ?.hesame with his objections f.uthe office of ,tlusSecretary of Statei aad .&we.aotice tharbef by pub& proclamatiou w&hb bveaty days afker s&h adj.ournuaent.
. .** More specifically, the question is.whetber the day on Which d bill 4s presented &sto be -countedip the ten days allowed hocthe Governor”.8.ac*ion.

’ Y%e gesieral rule in to exclude the first day .a.ud

include the .last. in computing .tbne %om* or hfter” a specified day ox event.*’ 41-A Tex. Jur.., Tbne, Sec. 15, p. ‘385.
. StLs‘our opfnion that the Goveruor has ien full days kclusive of .Simdays) after the,day of the ~pre.seutat&ou of a bdll
‘b liim within whkh to return the bill with his objections. The :Pm dOeSnot ‘betome law w%tboutthe Governor% s @nature usxtil titer ddnlght at the end of the .tenthday (Sundays excluded).Honorable Price Daniel, .Page 2, (WW-111).

SUMMARY
The day of pre~sentation of a bill to the Governor after its passage. by the Legislature is excluded in determining the ten days (excluding Sundays) during which the Governor may consider the bill, and the Governor has until midnight of the tenth day (excluding Sundays) during which to consider the bill.
Yours very truly, WILL WILSON

:

JHM:Pf APPROVED: OPINION COMMIT TEE H.. Grady Chandler, ~Chairman W: V. Geppert Edwin P.Horner William R. Hemphill Fred Werkenthin ,’ .,. :; :_ REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Geo. P. Blackburn

‘
.
EX PARTE Albert CRAWFORD

CR-17-0075

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 22, 2017

Mand. pet. denied.
EX PARTE T.G.

(In re: T.G. v. Russell County Department of Human Resources)

2170111

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE SCHEDULES AND STATEMENT OF 

FINANCIAL AFFAIRS - Page | 1

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

IN RE: §

§

HIGHLAND SELECT §

EQUITY MASTER FUND, L.P. § CASE NO: 23-31037-swe7

§ (Chapter 7)

DEBTOR. §

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO

EXTEND TIME TO FILE SCHEDULES AND STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL AFFAIRS

On this day came for consideration the Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Schedules

(the “Motion”), filed by Highland Select Equity Master Fund, L.P. (the “Debtor”). The Court finds 

that notice of the Motion was reasonable and sufficient under the circumstances. Based upon the 

pleadings and representations of counsel and the lack of any opposition by the Chapter 7 Trustee, the 

Court finds that the Motion should be granted. IT IS THEREFORE,

ORDERED that the Motion is granted. IT IS FURTHER,

United States Bankruptcy Judge

______________________________________________________________________

Signed June 5, 2023

The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.

Case 23-31037-swe7 Doc 8 Filed 06/05/23 Entered 06/05/23 12:00:33 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE SCHEDULES AND STATEMENT OF 

FINANCIAL AFFAIRS - Page | 2

ORDERED that the deadlines for filing the Schedules, Statements, and other documents 

required to be filed by the Debtor pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1007(b) and (d) 

are hereby extended to and including June 16, 2023. 

###END OF ORDER###

Submitted by:

Hudson M. Jobe

Quilling, Selander, Lownds,

Winslett & Moser, P.C.

2001 Bryan Street, Suite 1800

Dallas, TX 75201

(214) 871-2100 – Telephone

(214) 871-2111 – Facsimile

hjobe@qslwm.com - Email

Case 23-31037-swe7 Doc 8 Filed 06/05/23 Entered 06/05/23 12:00:33 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John K. BRIGGS et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 72-3459

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 12, 1973.

*1230Doris Peterson, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City, James Reif, New York City, Morton Stavis, Newark, N. J., Nancy Stearns, New York City, Cameron Cunningham, Brady S. Coleman, Austin, Tex., Larry Turner, Gainesville, Fla., for defendants-appellants.

William H. Stafford, Jr., U. S. Atty., Pensacola, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WISDOM, GODBOLD and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York, et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3147(b)(2), from the decision of the district court setting bail for each of the eight defendant-appellants in the amount of $10,000 cash or surety bond and denying defendants’ motion that they be released on their personal recognizance or in the custody of counsel or upon a 10% deposit of the amount fixed for their bond. The district court also denied defendants’ motions to deposit government securities in lieu of cash and for an evidentiary hearing as to the amount and conditions of the bond. The district court failed to state any reasons for imposing the conditions of release.

We remand the cause so that the district court may comply with Rule 9(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that the district court shall state in writing the reasons for imposing or refusing to impose conditions of release. See United States v. Estes, 5 Cir. 1972, 458 F.2d 1076; United States v. Cramer, 5 Cir. 1971, 451 F.2d 1198.

Remanded.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 14, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 3173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00543]

[[Page 3173]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-2-2025]

Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 49, Notification of Proposed Production 
Activity; Merck, Sharp & Dohme LLC; (Pharmaceutical Products for 
Research and Development); Rahway, New Jersey

    Merck, Sharp & Dohme LLC submitted a notification of proposed 
production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in 
Rahway, New Jersey, within Subzone 49Y. The notification conforming to 
the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was 
received on January 3, 2025.
    Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be 
limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and 
specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification 
(summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The 
benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ 
procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's 
website--accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz. The proposed finished 
product(s) and material(s)/component(s) would be added to the 
production authority that the Board previously approved for the 
operation, as reflected on the Board's website.
    The proposed finished products include MK-0616 macrocycle metabolic 
disorders drug product, MK-6204 metabolic disorders drug product and 
MK-5608 immunological disorder macrocyclic peptide drug product (duty-
free).
    The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: MK-0616 
macrocycle metabolic disorders active pharmaceutical ingredient; MK-
6204 metabolic disorders alkaloid active pharmaceutical ingredient; MK-
6204 metabolic disorders monoclonal antibody active pharmaceutical 
ingredient; MK-5608 macrocyclic peptide immunological disorder active 
pharmaceutical ingredient; sodium caprate; microcrystalline cellulose; 
and, empty hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) capsules (duty rate 
ranges from duty-free to 6.5%). The request indicates that certain 
materials/components are subject to duties under section 301 of the 
Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. 
The applicable section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be 
admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to: 
[email protected]. The closing period for their receipt is February 24, 
2025.
    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection 
in the ``Online FTZ Information System'' section of the Board's 
website.
    For further information, contact Diane Finver at 
[email protected].

    Dated: January 7, 2025.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-00543 Filed 1-13-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

May 22, 2007

Before

Hon. William J. Bauer, Circuit Judge

Hon. Daniel A. Manion, Circuit Judge

Hon. Ilana Diamond Rovner, Circuit Judge

No. 06-1535

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiffs-Appellee,

v.

DEBRA LOGGINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 04 CR 537 

Charles R. Norgle, Sr.

Judge.

O R D E R

The slip opinion issued in the above-entitled case on May 9, 2007 is hereby

amended as follows:

Page 7, The first sentence of the first full paragraph, currently reads:

“Here, the evidence lacks this exculpatory significance and the reliability

necessary to support a Sixth Amendment.”

It should read as follows:

“Here, the evidence lacks this exculpatory significance and the reliability

necessary to support a Sixth Amendment violation.”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

NORMAN POTTS,

Petitioner,

VS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:06-CV-0201-G

)

) CRIMINAL ACTION NO

) 3:04-CR-321-G

) ECF

)

ORDER

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

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge

and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the

undersigned district judge is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the

magistrate judge are correct and they are ACCEPTED as the findings and conclusions

of the court.

For the reasons stated in the findings, conclusions, and recommendation, the

court DENIES as moot movant’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS the

motion to vacate on one claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court
- 2 -

VACATES petitioner’s sentence and will resentence him by separate order in light of

the accurately calculated guidelines range.

SO ORDERED.

July 17, 2008.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge
Reginald Andri RICHARDSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-5071

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 11, 2019

Reginald Andri Richardson, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied on the merits.

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Dennis G. Dracup, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A of Language Line, 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 quarterly 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 officers 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)) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such
disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of
the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officers 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 function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud,
whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: September 19, 2006

|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Dennis G. Dracup                
|    |  | Dennis G. Dracup                    
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
II 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 36 

To protect the seniors of the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 8, 2025 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

A BILL 

To protect the seniors of the United States, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect Our Seniors 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. POINT OF ORDER FOR REDUCTIONS IN MEDICARE 

7 AND SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. 

8 Section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 

9 (2 U.S.C. 632) is amended by adding at the end the fol10 lowing: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 36 IS

1 ‘‘(j) MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY POINT OF

2 ORDER.— 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in order in 

4 the Senate to consider any bill or resolution (or 

5 amendment, motion, or conference report on that bill 

6 or resolution) that would reduce benefits under the 

7 Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social 

8 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) or benefits 

9 payable under title II of that Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et 

10 seq.). 

11 ‘‘(2) WAIVER.—Paragraph (1) may be waived 

12 or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative 

13 vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and 

14 sworn.’’. 

15 SEC. 3. MEDICARE POINT OF ORDER. 

16 Section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 

17 (2 U.S.C. 632), as amended by section 3, is further 

18 amended by adding at the end the following: 

19 ‘‘(k) MEDICARE POINT OF ORDER.— 

20 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in order in 

21 the Senate to consider any bill or resolution (or 

22 amendment, motion, or conference report on that bill 

23 or resolution) for which the total budgetary effects 

24 of the measure, as determined by the Congressional 

25 Budget Office, use a decrease in outlays, or an inVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:12 Jan 31, 2025 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S36.IS S36

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 36 IS

1 crease in revenue, under the health insurance pro2 grams under title XVIII of the Social Security Act 

3 (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) to offset a cost of a provi4 sion of the measure that is not for the purpose of 

5 carrying out those programs. 

6 ‘‘(2) WAIVER.—Paragraph (1) may be waived 

7 or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative 

8 vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and 

9 sworn. An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Mem10 bers of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be 

11 required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the 

12 Chair on a point of order raised under paragraph 

13 (1).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB