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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DONALD ROGER BURR §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

VS. § NO. 3-05-CV-1539-D 

§

BILL HILL, ET AL. §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

After conducting a review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the findings

and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1), and plaintiff’s objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendation

of the magistrate judge are correct, and they are hereby accepted as the findings of the court.

Although in his objections plaintiff offers evidence to support the assertion that he was injured in

an automobile accident on November 22, 2005, and his evidence arguably supports the conclusion

that medical and financial difficulties precluded him from traveling to Texas, his proof does not

demonstrate that his injuries are so severe that he could not at least have advised the court of his

current address and communicated his whereabouts to his lawyer. This court’s dismissal order is

not merely the result of plaintiff’s failure to travel to Texas but of multiple failures to comply even

with the most basic obligation that he communicate with his counsel and the court and participate

in discovery that did not require his physical presence in Texas.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01539-D-BD Document 98 Filed 03/06/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID 478
Accordingly, treating plaintiff’s “appeal” and “objection” to the dismissal of this case as a

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from final judgment, the motion is denied.

SO ORDERED.

March 6, 2007.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01539-D-BD Document 98 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID 479
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                              91
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    91
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      91
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          159,428
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      (159,337)
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        91
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               165,207
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              73,224
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (165,207)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (238,431)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (238,431)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)


</TABLE>
Christopher AMY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1302

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
Case 3:05-cv-01039-H Document 9 Filed 09/19/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 90
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             524
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           7,254
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        363
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           4,147
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             4,224
<LOANS>                                         24,590
<ALLOWANCE>                                        141
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,344
<DEPOSITS>                                      26,334
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                449
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  37,344
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,954
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  580
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,534
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,145
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,146
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,388
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    866
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    557
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         557
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       363
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.07
<LOANS-NON>                                         98
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   143
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        2
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  141
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               141
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
J.R., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0667

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 06, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-2 Filed 05/05/06 Page 1 of 15 PageID 171
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-2 Filed 05/05/06 Page 2 of 15 PageID 172
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-2 Filed 05/05/06 Page 3 of 15 PageID 173
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-2 Filed 05/05/06 Page 4 of 15 PageID 174
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-2 Filed 05/05/06 Page 5 of 15 PageID 175
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-2 Filed 05/05/06 Page 6 of 15 PageID 176
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-2 Filed 05/05/06 Page 7 of 15 PageID 177
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-2 Filed 05/05/06 Page 8 of 15 PageID 178
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-2 Filed 05/05/06 Page 9 of 15 PageID 179
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-2 Filed 05/05/06 Page 10 of 15 PageID 180
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-2 Filed 05/05/06 Page 11 of 15 PageID 181
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-2 Filed 05/05/06 Page 12 of 15 PageID 182
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-2 Filed 05/05/06 Page 13 of 15 PageID 183
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-2 Filed 05/05/06 Page 14 of 15 PageID 184
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 25-2 Filed 05/05/06 Page 15 of 15 PageID 185
Case 3:05-cv-02402-K Document 16 Filed 12/22/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 82
# C_2016314EN.01003101.xml

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/31

---

Action brought on 28 June 2016 — European Social Enterprise Law Association v EUIPO (EUROPEAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE LAW ASSOCIATION)

(Case T-353/16)

(2016/C 314/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Social Enterprise Law Association (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Fletcher, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘EUROPEAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE LAW ASSOCIATION’ — Application for registration No 14 062 129

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 Aprilie 2016 in Case R 2208/2015-4

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 to pay the costs of the Applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the Applicant.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,226,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,047,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (820,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,344,000
<PP&E>                                       9,353,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,768,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              88,580,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,109,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  59,243,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                88,580,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            74,387,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            60,281,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             448,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,658,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,123,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,535,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,535,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58
        

</TABLE>
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| Dated:              May 14,              2007                                                                                                         |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                                                                                  |   |   |   |
|                                                                                                                                                  |   |   |   |
| By:  /s/              Marus U. Segal                                                                                                             |   |   |        |
| Name: Marcus                U. Segal                                                                                                             |   |   |        |
| Title: President,                Chief Executive Officer,                                                                                        |   |   |        |
| Chief                Financial Officer, Secretary and Director (Principal                Executive, Financial, and Accounting                Officer) |   |   |   |

----
B.L.V. v. K.H. and J.H.

2160524

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Eran Forman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Siberian Energy Group Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Siberian Energy Group Inc.





Date: August 20, 2012





By:/s/ Eran FormanEran Forman


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial/Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Our Glass, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the Report), I, Cosmo Palmieri, Chief Executive 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  Date: April 4, 2008  /s/ Cosmo PalmieriChief Executive Officer
Arthaniel Bernard STATON v. STATE

CR-16-0121

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2017006EN.01005402.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/54

---

Action brought on 11 November 2016 — CEDC International v EUIPO — Underberg (Representation of a greeny-brown blade of grass in a bottle)

(Case T-796/16)

(2017/C 006/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Underberg AG (Dietlikon, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: EU tridimensional mark (Representation of a greeny-brown blade of grass in a bottle) — Application for registration No 33 266

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2016 in Case R 1248/2015-4

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 to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court and the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court and the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(a) and (b), 42(2) and (3), 75 and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(a) and (b), 42(2) and (3), 75 and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
#### W. E. Lee, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. J. Schnarr & Company, a Corporation, *Defendant in Error.*

Division A.

Decision Filed July 13, 1927.

*Hampton, Bull & Pencke,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*W. A. Pattishall,*for Defendant in Error.

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 for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised 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, *196therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PokerTek, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark D. Roberson,
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, to my
knowledge:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and





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





Date:  May
14, 2009





/s/
      Mark D. RobersonMark
      D. RobersonChief
      Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-51035 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TAVICHE MARQUISE GRIMES, also known as Taviche M. Grimes, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-97-CR-63-1-S

-------------------- October 20, 1999 Before JONES, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Taviche Marquise Grimes has filed a motion to withdraw from representation of Grimes and a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Grimes has responded to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of the brief, the record, and Grimes’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, Grimes’s court-appointed attorney’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED; the attorney is excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.No. -2-

See 5 TH CIR . R. 42.2
Dean DELGUIDICE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3317

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 14, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 25 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 25

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That in recognition of the long and distinguished service rendered to 
the Nation by Harry Mason Reid, Jr., a Senator from the State of 
Nevada, his remains be permitted to lie in state in the rotunda of the 
Capitol on Wednesday, January 12, 2022, and the Architect of the 
Capitol, under the direction of the President pro tempore of the Senate 
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall take all 
necessary steps for the accomplishment of that purpose.

            Passed the Senate January 5, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 25

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the lying in 
state of the remains of the Honorable Harry Mason Reid, Jr., a Senator 
                       from the State of Nevada.
```
Ryan MAXWELL, Appellant, v. John EDWARDS and Brindley Kuiper, et al., Appellees.

No. 4D18-1680

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 18, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

VALTON VANOY BILLINGSLEY §

§

Petitioner, §

§

VS. §

§ NO. 3-05-CV-1972-P 

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER

After conducting a review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and the Findings

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1), I am of the opinion that the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are

correct and they are hereby accepted as the Findings of the Court. 

SO ORDERED this 16 day of March 2006. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01972-P Document 25 Filed 03/16/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 133
EXHIBIT 23.01

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-148198,
333-106043, 333-115137, 333-125918, 333-139074 and 333-148198) of FormFactor, Inc. of our report dated February 20, 2008
relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP         |  | 
|-------------------------------------- |  | 
|San Jose, California
February 27, 2008 |  | 

---



QuickLinks