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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DAVID OWEN DAWES,

Petitioner,

VS.

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director,

Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Correctional Institutions Division

Respondent.

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:05-CV-0946-G

)

) CONSOLIDATED WITH

) 3:05-CV-0955-G

)

) ECF

)

ORDER

After making the 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. 

In addition to the findings and conclusions made by the Magistrate Judge

regarding petitioner David Owen Dawes’ (“the petitioner” or “Dawes”) claims for

ineffective assistance of counsel, the court finds that Dawes waived his claims to

ineffective assistance of counsel regarding all issues except those related to (1) the

knowing and voluntary nature of his plea, and (2) his counsel’s performance during

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00946-G Document 11 Filed 08/23/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 76
- 2 -

the punishment phase of the hearing. Petitioner waived those claims to ineffective

assistance of counsel when he made a knowing and voluntary guilty plea. United

States v. Glinsey, 209 F.3d 386, 392 (5th Cir. 2000). 

SO ORDERED.

August 23, 2006.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00946-G Document 11 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 77
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Northern District of California

School Loop, Inc., a California corporation

5:17-cv-00024

Dewsly Education, LLC dba Loop, a Kansas limited

liability company

Dewsly Education, LLC dba Loop

2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 380

Kansas City, MO 64108

Ethan G. Solove, Esq.

STRUCTURE LAW GROUP, LLP

1754 Technology Drive, Suite 135

San Jose, California 95110

01/04/2017

Case 3:17-cv-00024-MEJ Document 2 Filed 01/04/17 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60121 Summary Calendar

DARILE JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus HARVEY TACKETT; JAILER TWELLER; JAILER TIPEE, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4-94-CV-69-S-B

- - - - - - - - - - January 30, 1997 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM: * Darile Johnson, a Mississippi state prisoner, No. 27928, appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his action for failure to state a claim. The district court’s dismissal occurred prior to the completion of service of process against the defendants and without any hearing being held pursuant to Spears v. McCotter , 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985) or anyNo. 96-60121 - 2 - questionnaire being presented pursuant to Watson v. Ault , 525 F.2d 886 (5th Cir. 1976). Although the district court’s dismissal was unusual because Johnson was not given any notice to allow him to clarify his factual allegations, an examination of Johnson’s claims reveals that there is no set of facts that Johnson could allege which would allow him to state a viable claim for relief. See McCormack v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n , 845 F.2d 1338, 1343 (5th Cir. 1988); see also Wilson v. Seiter , 501 U.S. 294, 303 (1991); Hudson v. Palmer , 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Wilson v. Lynaugh , 878 F.2d 846, 849 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 969 (1989). The district court’s dismissal is AFFIRMED. Johnson’s motion to object to the dismissal is DENIED as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. MOTION DENIED.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

136159-60 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. RICHARD L. PIESER, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 136159-60 COA: 275608 WCAC: 05-000354 SARA LEE BAKERY and TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants, and

SECOND INJURY FUND, VOCATIONALLY HANDICAPPED PROVISIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 20, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

t0721 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 29, 2008

Clerk
----

----

|   |              | /s/ Daniel R. Herndon                                                                                        |   |
|--------|-------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  | November 15, 2010 | Name:   Daniel R. Herndon                                                                          |   |
|   |              | Title:      President and Chief Executive Officer                                   |   |
|   |              |                                                                                                         |   |
|   |              |                                                                                                         |   |
|   |              | /s/ Clyde D. Patterson                                                                                       |   |
|   |              | Name:   Clyde D. Patterson                                                                         |   |
| Date:  | November 15, 2010 | Title:      Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                    |   |
|   |              |               (Principal Financial Officer) |   |
# C_2021310EN.01002801.xml

| 2.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/28

---

Order of the General Court of 8 June 2021 — Price v Council

(Case T-231/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Area of freedom, security and justice - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and from Euratom - Council Decision on the conclusion of the Agreement on withdrawal - United Kingdom nationals - Loss of EU citizenship - Act not of individual concern - Non-regulatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 310/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: David Price (Le Dorat, France) (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

Defendant): Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, R. Meyer and M. Joséphidès, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment in part of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 2020 L 29, p. 7) and of Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 of 30 January 2020 on the conclusion of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 2020 L 29, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by the European Commission.

| 3. | Mr David Price is ordered to bear, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including those regarding the application for interim measures, with the exception of those related to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr David Price is ordered to bear, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including those regarding the application for interim measures, with the exception of those related to the application for leave to intervene.

| 4. | Mr Price, the Council and the Commission shall each bear their own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Mr Price, the Council and the Commission shall each bear their own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

---
# C_2018032EN.01001102.xml

| 29.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/11

---

Appeal brought on 1 August 2017 by Società agricola Taboga Leandro e Fidenato Giorgio Ss against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2017 in Case T-172/17, Società agricola Taboga Leandro e Fidenato Giorgio v Parliament and Council

(Case C-467/17 P)

(2018/C 032/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Società agricola Taboga Leandro e Fidenato Giorgio Ss (represented by: F. Longo, avvocato)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 29 November 2017, the Court (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Società agricola Taboga Leandro e Fidenato Giorgio Ss to bear its own costs.

---
Case 3:05-cr-00075-N Document 378 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 675
Frederick A. PETTERSEN v. Audrey S. PETTERSEN

2017-CT-00089-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: February 19, 2019 Closed: May 2, 2019

Certiorari - Denied
IIA 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 62 

Approving the location of a memorial to commemorate the commitment of 

the United States to a free press by honoring journalists who sacrificed 

their lives in service to that cause. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2022 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. PORTMAN, and Mr. VAN HOLLEN) introduced 

the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Approving the location of a memorial to commemorate the 

commitment of the United States to a free press by 

honoring journalists who sacrificed their lives in service 

to that cause. 

Whereas section 8908(b)(1) of title 40, United States Code, 

provides that the location of a commemorative work in 

Area I, as depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Commemorative 

Areas Washington, DC and Environs’’, numbered 869/ 

86501 B, and dated June 24, 2003 (referred to in this 

preamble as ‘‘Area I’’), shall be deemed to be authorized 

only if a recommendation for the location is approved by 

law not later than 150 calendar days after the date on 

which Congress is notified of the recommendation; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 62 IS 

Whereas the Fallen Journalists Memorial Act (40 U.S.C. 

8903 note; Public Law 116–253) authorized the Fallen 

Journalists Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial 

on Federal land in the District of Columbia and its environs to commemorate the commitment of the United 

States to a free press by honoring journalists who sacrificed their lives in service to that cause (referred to in 

this preamble as the ‘‘memorial’’); and 

Whereas the Secretary of the Interior has notified Congress 

of the determination of the Secretary of the Interior that 

the memorial should be located in Area I: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the location of a commemorative work to commemo4 rate the commitment of the United States to a free press 

5 by honoring journalists who sacrificed their lives in service 

6 to that cause within Area I, as depicted on the map enti7 tled ‘‘Commemorative Areas Washington, DC and Envi8 rons’’, numbered 869/86501 B, and dated June 24, 2003, 

9 is approved. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Case 3:05-cv-00273-K Document 5 Filed 02/17/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 20
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00273-K Document 5 Filed 02/17/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 21
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00273-K Document 5 Filed 02/17/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 22
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LILIA E. PETRENKO-GUNTER, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. §

§ Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-2691-D

EVELYN UPCHURCH, Individually §

and in her Official Capacity as Director §

of the Texas Service Center of the BCIS, §

et al., §

Defendants §

ORDER

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

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

opinion that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct and

are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the court. 

It is therefore ordered that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge are adopted. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed February

25, 2005, is granted, and the case against defendants in their official capacities is dismissed without

prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, filed June 13, 2005, is denied.

SO ORDERED.

July 18, 2005.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02691-D Document 41 Filed 07/18/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 435
# C_2017357EN.01000302.xml

| 23.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 13 July 2017 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Skarpa Travel sp. z o.o. w Krakowie

(Case C-422/17)

(2017/C 357/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Appellant:

Respondent: Skarpa Travel sp. z o.o. w Krakowie

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that tax becomes chargeable on payments on account received by a taxable person supplying tourist services, which are taxed under the special scheme for travel agents provided for in Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112/EC, at the time defined in Article 65 of Directive 2006/112/EC? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that tax becomes chargeable on payments on account received by a taxable person supplying tourist services, which are taxed under the special scheme for travel agents provided for in Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112/EC, at the time defined in Article 65 of Directive 2006/112/EC?

1

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must Article 65 of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that, for taxation purposes, a payment on account received by a taxable person supplying tourist services, taxed under the special scheme for travel agents provided for in Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112/EC, is reduced by the cost referred to in Article 308 of Directive 2006/112/EC actually incurred by the taxable person up to the time when he receives the payment on account? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must Article 65 of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that, for taxation purposes, a payment on account received by a taxable person supplying tourist services, taxed under the special scheme for travel agents provided for in Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112/EC, is reduced by the cost referred to in Article 308 of Directive 2006/112/EC actually incurred by the taxable person up to the time when he receives the payment on account?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
Arthur Christopher SAMUEL, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1414

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Matthew T. Gibbs II, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Language Line Holdings, 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: May 12, 2005



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Matthew T. Gibbs II             
|    |  | Matthew T. Gibbs II                 
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer and Director



19
Office of the Director

Office of Media Relations (OMR)

Director

Paloma Perez Christie

Deputy Director

Will Wiquist

Deputy Director

Raven Hill

Senior Communications Advisor

Katie Gorscak

Audio Visual

Services 

FCC Website

Services

Social Media

Services

EDocs

Services
IIA 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 19 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed transfer to Israel 

of certain defense articles, including defense services and technical data. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 20, 2021 

Mr. SANDERS introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed 

transfer to Israel of certain defense articles, including 

defense services and technical data. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the issuance of a license for the export with respect 

4 to any of the following transfers to Israel is prohibited: 

5 (1) The transfer of the following defense arti6 cles, including defense services and technical data, 

7 described in license document DDTC 20–084, sub8 mitted to Congress pursuant to section 36(c) of the 

9 Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(c)) on 

10 May 5, 2021: The proposed transfer of defense artiVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:49 May 20, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ19.IS SJ19

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 19 IS 

1 cles, defense services, and technical data to support 

2 weapons integration, flight test, and hardware deliv3 ery of Joint Direct Attack Munition variants and 

4 Small Diameter Bomb Increment I variants for end5 use by the Ministry of Defense for Israel. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Elizabeth LUCKETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1811

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 15, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wetherell, Osterhaus, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
Brian M. CASEY, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 1D19-0616

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 15, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 13, 2019

Brian M. Casey, pro se, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits.

Roberts, Ray, and Jay, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

GEORGE NEAL WILLIAMS )

)

V. ) 3-06-CV-61-D

)

DOUGLAS DRETKE, ET AL )

ORDER

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

the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court concludes that

the findings and conclusions are correct. It is therefore ordered that the findings, conclusions,

and recommendation of the magistrate judge are adopted.

SO ORDERED.

May 31, 2006.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00061-D Document 13 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 89