alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### AVID IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLOBAL ID SYSTEMS and Douglas E. Hull, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-1011.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 23, 2004.

David B. Abel, Principal Attorney, Squire, Sanders, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Derek L. Tabone, Principal Attorney, Law Office, Van Nuys, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of Avid Identification Systems, Inc.’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

*716(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Suzanne Mersereau SEARLES, petitioner, v. Paul BERKEL, et al.

No. 13-6725.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice SOTOMAYOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Walter JOHNSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6664.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Edward Jankowski, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1
to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of XpresSpa Group, 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.



Dated: April 30, 2018



| | /s/ Edward Jankowski         
| | -----------------------------
| | Edward Jankowski             
| | Chief Executive Officer      
| | (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Gloria STEPHENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Beatrice Mladenka-Fowler, Appellant, v. DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; et al, Defendants, Denton Independent School District; Mark Baker; Julia Christman; Rick Woolfolk, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-40578.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 7, 2004.

Thomas Henry Padgett, Jr., Lagarde Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant, Appellants.

Thomas Phillip Brandt, Robert Harris Fugate, Nellie Gomez Hooper, Fanning, Harper *&*Martinson, Dallas, TX, Michael *249J. Whitten, Griffin, Whitten, Jones & Reib, Denton, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

AFFIRMED. *See*5th Cir. R. 47.6.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Troy Douglas BAYLOR and James Derrick Baylor, petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7196.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MESA
OFFSHORE TRUST 1997 FIRST QUARTER REPORT AND FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 1997 FIRST QUARTER REPORT AND FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                 2,580,121
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,230
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,588,351
<PP&E>                                     380,905,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             379,898,371
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,594,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          588,351
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,006,629
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,594,980
<SALES>                                      1,111,555
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,129,167
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               619,634
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                509,533
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            509,533
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   509,533
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .007
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .007
        

</TABLE>
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 Annual Report of Titan Machinery Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended
January 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Mark P. Kalvoda, 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:

The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date:
April 18, 2011

/s/ MARK P. KALVODA Mark P. Kalvoda Chief Financial Officer


---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk October 4, 2012

p0927 

# Order

October 4, 2012

144872

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144872

COA: 301497

Wayne CC: 10

- 001736

- FC

CAROL ETCHIE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 21, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 July 30, 2013

s0722

Order 

Clerk

July 30, 2013

146895

GREGORY V. YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 146895

AGC: 0038-13

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered, and 

relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested 

relief.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

Kurt Martin, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:13-cv-052 PPS

)

)

NIPSCO et al. )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Plaintiff Kurt Martin filed a document that he styles a “Motion for Order to Show Cause

re: Plundering and Privateering” on January 25, 2013. (DE 1.) He names at least thirteen

defendants in the caption of the case including the IRS, the House of Representatives and the

Senate. With all due respect to Mr. Martin, it is extremely hard to understand the filing. I have

no idea what his grievance is or what he wants this Court to do about it. That’s a problem

because Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain “a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

8(a). Every allegation must be “simple, concise, and direct.” Id. at 8(d)(1). An unintelligible

pleading won’t satisfy Rule 8's requirements and should be dismissed. See Stanard v. Nygren,

658 F.3d 792, 798-99 (7th Cir. 2011); Schwartz v. Interra Credit Union, No. 3:12 CV 413, 2012

WL 4741588, *2 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 3, 2012). Martin’s initial filing falls within this category.

I need not wait until one or more of the defendants moves to dismiss Martin’s pleading. I

can do that on my own accord. “District judges have ample authority to dismiss frivolous or

transparently defective suits spontaneously, and thus save everyone time and legal expense...

even when the plaintiff has paid all fees for filing and service.” Hoskins v. Polestra, 320 F.3d

case 3:13-cv-00052-PPS-CAN document 8 filed 01/30/13 page 1 of 2
761, 762 (7th Cir. 2003). In other words, it’s my job to screen incoming complaints and

promptly dismiss those that appear frivolous or nonsensical. See Shah v. Inter-Cont’l Hotel

Chicago Operating Corp., 314 F.3d 278, 282 (7th Cir. 2002) (“It is commendable rather than

censurable in a judge to review complaints as they are filed and weed out the frivolous ones

without putting the defendant to the burden of responding....”).

That’s what I’ll do here. If Martin wants to amend his filing so that I can understand

what his grievance is and what he wants me to do about it, he’s free to do so. But until I have a

coherent complaint in front of me, I’m not going to let him proceed with his lawsuit. 

Therefore, the Motion for Order to Show Cause re: Plundering and Privateering (DE 1) is

DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND for its failure to comply with Rule 8. Davenport’s

so-called Motion for Stay of Writ of Assistance Stay of Execution on any and all Void Orders

(DE 3) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: January 30, 2013.

s/ Philip P. Simon 

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

case 3:13-cv-00052-PPS-CAN document 8 filed 01/30/13 page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:13-CR-90-TLS 

)

LUIS TAPIA )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 8], filed on January 24, 2014. The Defendant has waived objection to the

Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No.8] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 1 of the Information is hereby accepted, and

the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate

order.

SO ORDERED on February 11, 2014.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Exhibit 35.2

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

DFS Services LLC

Discover Card Master Trust I

The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of DFS Services LLC (DFS), hereby certifies that:



|(a) | A review of the activities of DFS during the fiscal year ended November 30, 2010 and of its performance under the Amended and Restated Servicing Agreement, dated
January 1, 2007, as amended, by and between DFS and Discover Bank (the Agreement), was made under my supervision.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, DFS has fulfilled all of its obligations in all material respects under the Agreement throughout the fiscal year
ended November 30, 2010.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 7th
day of February 2011.



By:

/s/ Carlos MinettiCarlos Minetti,Executive Vice President, Cardmember Services and Consumer Banking
SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

         I, Brian J. Sereda, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Terabeam,
Inc., certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Terabeam,
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)) for the registrant and 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 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 registrant's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

                  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: August 14, 2006                         /s/ Brian J. Sereda
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Brian J. Sereda
                                  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 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 Sabine Royalty Trust (the Trust) on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the
Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its 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
Trust. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FOR
SABINE ROYALTY TRUSTBy:
    /s/ Ron E. HooperRon E. Hooper,Senior Vice President, Royalty Management Date: May 6, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Sabine Royalty Trust and will be retained by Sabine Royalty Trust
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Gwendolyn RILEY, et al., petitioners, v. Larry Wayne WASHINGTON.

No. 12-8701.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
P/NP: Present, Not Present

 C/NC: Custody, Not in Custody 

 I: Interpreter 

Adriana M. Kratzmann

Courtroom Deputy

Original: Efiled 

CC: 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRIMINAL MINUTES

Date: September 16, 2019 Time: 1:43,1:45-1:51 pm

Total Time: 7 Mins.

Judge: Edward J. Davila

Case No.: 17-cr-00068-EJD5Case Name: UNITED STATES v. Jose David Abrego-Galdamez(P)(C)(I)

Attorney for Plaintiff: Stephen Meyer

Attorney for Defendant: Peter Leeming

Deputy Clerk: Adriana M. Kratzmann Court Reporter: Irene Rodriguez

Interpreter: Lupita Arce(Spanish) Probation Officer: Kyle Pollak

PROCEEDINGS - SENTENCING

Defendant is present and in-custody assisted by a Spanish interpreter. Hearing held.

The Court sentenced the defendant as follows:

Defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to be imprisoned for a 

term of 36 months. This term consists of terms of 36 months on each of Cts. 1 and 2 of the Second 

Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 147 filed 8/16/2018) said term to be served concurrent to one another. 

The term of imprisonment imposed by this judgment shall run concurrently with the defendant’s term of 

imprisonment in Docket 15cr00567-001-BLF, Northern District of California.

The Court imposes a 3-year term of supervised release. Said term consists of 3 years on each of Cts. 1 

and 2, said term shall run concurrently to one another if the defendant is not deported. The Court adopts 

the Probation Officer’s recommendations for standard and special conditions (SEE JUDGMENT).

$200 Special Assessment Fee imposed due immediately; Fine waived;

Defendant is remanded to the custody of the BOP;

The Court makes the following recommendation to the BOP: that the defendant be designated to a 

facility as close to the San Jose, California are where the defendant’s family resides. The Court finds 

that family visitation enhances rehabilitation.

The Government orally requests that the Court dismiss the underlying Counts in the previous 

Indictment. The Court ordered those Indictments dismissed as to this defendant.

Case 5:17-cr-00068-EJD Document 265 Filed 09/16/19 Page 1 of 1
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
**143 KA 14-00068**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JAMES H. SCHOLZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 4.)

ADAM H. VAN BUSKIRK, AUBURN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), rendered May 28, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal contempt in the second degree. It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed.
Same memorandum as in People v Scholz ([appeal No. 2] ___ AD3d ___ [Feb. 13, 2015]).

Entered: February 13, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 

Marketing Orders for 

Logic Vapeleaf Regular Cartridge/Capsule Package, Logic Vapeleaf Regular Cartridge/Capsule 

Package, Logic Vapeleaf Tobacco Vapor System, Logic Pro Tobacco e-Liquid Package, Logic Pro 

Capsule Tank System, Logic Pro Capsule Tank System, Logic Power Tobacco e-Liquid Package, 

Logic Power Cherry Rechargeable Kit 

Marketed by Logic Technology Development LLC 

The Center for Tobacco Products of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has carefully considered 

the potential environmental impacts of these actions and has concluded that these actions will not have 

significant effects on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, environmental impact 

statements are not required. 

Logic Technology Development LLC wishes to market five electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) 

components and three closed e-liquids products into interstate commerce for commercial distribution in 

the United States and submitted to FDA premarket tobacco product applications to obtain marketing 

orders under the provisions of section 910 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

FDA reviewed the applicant’s environmental assessments (EAs), dated December 3, 2020, for the eight 

ENDS tobacco products in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR 

Part 1500-1508) implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FDA’s NEPA 

regulations (21 CFR 25.40). The EAs concluded that the marketing orders would have no significant 

impact. The applicant’s EAs are available to the public upon request. 

The applicant’s EAs evaluated potential environmental effects due to manufacturing, use, and disposal 

of the new products. No increased or new types of environmental impacts due to manufacturing the 

new products are anticipated. FDA does not foresee that use of the new products would result in new or 

different environmental impacts. FDA believes that the disposal of the new products is the same as the 

disposal conditions of other ENDS components and closed e-liquids that are currently marketed in the 

United States. Therefore, FDA does not foresee significant adverse impacts to the environment due to 

the proposed actions from manufacturing, use, and disposal of the new product. 

Digitally signed by Hans M. Rosenfeldt 

-S 

Approved byd byDate: 2022.03.18 14:24:07 -04'00'

Luis G. Valerio Jr., PhD, ATS 

Associate Director 

Division of Nonclinical Science 

Office of Science 

Center for Tobacco Products 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration