alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

 District of Oregon

Glacier Films (USA), Inc. et al

3:15-cv-01817-SB

Andrey Turchin

ANDREY TURCHIN

14900 SE MARCI WAY

CLACKAMAS, OR 97015

CROWELL LAW

DREW P. TAYLOR

943 LIBERTY STREET SE

PO BOX 923

SALEM, OR 97308

03/04/2016 By: s/Sutawnee Sellers, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:15-cv-01817-SB Document 18 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 2 Case 3:15-cv-01817-SB Document 20 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:15-cv-01817-SB Document 20 Filed 03/18/16 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:15-cv-01817-SB Document 20 Filed 03/18/16 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Buckner Woodford, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kentucky Bancshares,
Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 quarterly 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
quarterly 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 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 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:   August 13, 2004
BY  /s/ Buckner Woodford
Buckner Woodford
President & Chief Executive Officer

2
Lexlibrary/197885.1
DISMISSED and Opinion Filed July 22, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00583-CV IN RE MPT OF HIGHLAND VILLAG E FCER, LLC, MPT OF LITTLE ELM FCER, LLC, AND MEDICAL PROPER TIES TRUST, INC., Relators Original Proceeding from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-24-03218 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Kennedy Before the Court are relators’ May 14, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus and July 18, 2024 agreed motion to dismiss. In their motion to dismiss, relators explain that they have settled all issues w ith real party in in terest rendering this original proceeding moot. Relators ask that we dismiss this proceeding and lift the temporary stay we issued so that they may obtain from the tria l court an order of dismissal with prejudice.–2– We grant the motion and dismiss this orig inal proceeding. We also lift the stay issued by this Court’s June 28, 2024 Order.

240583F.P05 /Nanc y Kenned y/ NANCY KENNEDY JUSTICE
* 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. 01-30954 Conference Calendar

IDA MAE WILLIAMS LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 01-CV-252

-------------------- February 20, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ida Mae Williams Lewis appeals the district court’s dismissal of her pro se , in forma pauperis , civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Lewis’s motion to strike Entergy Gulf States’s motion to dismiss the complaint that was filed in the district court is DENIED. We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Blackburn v. City of Marshall , 42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). Lewis has notNo. 01-30954 -2- challenged the district court’s reasons for dismissing her complaint. Accordingly, it is as if Lewis had not appealed the judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Lewis’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; MOTION DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRlCT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

JOSE ALFREDO REGALADO, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JEFF PREMO, 

Respondent. 

MOSMAN,J., 

No. 6:14-cv-01568-SB 

OPINION AND ORDER 

On August 12, 2016, Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued her Findings and 

Recommendation ("F&R") [42], recommending that the Court deny Mr. Regalado's Habeas 

Petition [1]. Mr. Regalado objected [47] and Mr. Premo responded [48]. Upon careful review, I 

agree with Judge Beckerman's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [42] as my own. 

DISCUSSION 

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The coutt is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the court 

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01568-SB Document 49 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 2
the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). 

Upon careful review, I agree with Judge Beckerman's recommendation and I ADOPT the 

F&R [42] as my own opinion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this A day of November, 2016. 

MIChief ~ United States District Judge 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01568-SB Document 49 Filed 11/21/16 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

ERIC FLORES, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

GENERAL and FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION, 

Defendants. 

MCSHANE, Judge: 

Civ. No. 1:15-cv-00644-CL 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff, pro se, seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this action alleging that an 

"organized group of executive employees of the federal government" used "advanced technology 

with a direct signal to a satellite in outerspace [sic]" to violate his rights under the First 

Amendment. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke issued a Report and Recommendation on April 

24, 2015, in which he recommended that this Court dismiss plaintiffs complaint as frivolous. 

The matter is now before this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Because no objections to the Report and Recommendation were timely filed, this Court 

reviews only the legal principles de novo. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444--45 

(9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, this Court finds 

no error in Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation, ECF No.4. 

1 -OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-00644-CL Document 6 Filed 05/12/15 Page 1 of 2
CONCLUSION 

This Court ADOPTS Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation, ECF No.4, in full. 

Accordingly, plaintiffs motion to transfer to multidistrict litigation, ECF No. 1-3, is DENIED, 

and plaintiffs application for leave to proceed IFP, ECF No.2, is DENIED 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 12th day of May, 2015. 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

L ~L--

Michael J. McShane 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:15-cv-00644-CL Document 6 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 ORDER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

Jessi Scroggins,

Plaintiff,

v.

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Civil No. 6:15-CV-01338-MC

ORDER 

Following an award of benefits by the Administrative Law Judge after a stipulated 

remand from this Court, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for approval of attorneys fees under 

42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in the amount of $9,629.63. ECF No. 29. Subtracted from that amount is 

$4,918.13 in previously paid EAJA fees, for an actual payment request of $4,711.50. The court 

may award a reasonable fee up to 25% of the retroactive benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The court 

finds that the fee is reasonable as it is based on the contractual fee agreement labeled Exhibit 3 

and the fee constitutes roughly 22.5% of the $42,846.00 in retroactive benefits. The Court 

therefore awards the requested attorneys fees. Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 29, is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of August, 2017.

______/s/ Michael McShane________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Mike Gomez, * From the 42nd District Court

 of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 29585-A.

Vs. No. 11-22-00134-CR * February 22, 2024

The State of Texas, * Opinion by Williams, J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion,

we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that Appellant pleaded “Not Guilty,” 

we modify the trial court’s judgment to read “Pro Se” instead of “Leigh W. Davis” 

for the “Attorney for Defendant,” and we also modify the trial court’s judgment to 

read “N/A” instead of “OPEN PLEA” and remove the marker indicating the “Terms 

of the Plea Bargain are attached and incorporated.” Finally, we modify the trial 

court’s judgment to reflect court costs as “$0.00.” As modified, we affirm the 

judgment of the trial court.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 20485 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Carlos Enrique Sub**

**- Botzoc,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 216

- 1

Before **Davis, Jones,** and **Elrod,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Enrique Sub

- Botzoc has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Sub

- Botzoc has not filed a response.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 4, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-20485 Document: 00516224684 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/04/2022No. 21

- 20485

2 We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for app ellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 21-20485 Document: 00516224684 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/04/2022
NOTICE OF FILING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 1

JEFFREY H. WOOD

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Environment & Natural Resources Division

LISA LYNNE RUSSELL, Chief

GUILLERMO A. MONTERO, Assistant Chief

SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar No. 4103131)

MARISSA PIROPATO (MA Bar No. 651630)

Trial Attorneys

Natural Resources Section

601 D Street NW

Washington, DC 20004

(202) 305-0445 (Duffy)

(202) 305-0470 (Piropato)

sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov

marissa.piropato@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Federal Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Federal Defendants.

Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC

NOTICE OF FILING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

NOTICE OF FILING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Federal Defendants, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby give notice of the filing 

in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus 

to the United States District Court for the District of Oregon and Request for Stay of Proceedings 

in District Court (“Petition”). A copy of the Petition is filed herewith as an exhibit to this Notice.
NOTICE OF FILING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 2

Dated: June 9, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

JEFFREY H. WOOD

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Environment & Natural Resources Division

/s/ Sean C. Duffy

LISA LYNNE RUSSELL

GUILLERMO A. MONTERO

SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar No. 4103131)

MARISSA PIROPATO (MA Bar No. 651630)

U.S. Department of Justice

Environment & Natural Resources Division

Natural Resources Section

601 D Street NW

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone: (202) 305-0445

Facsimile: (202) 305-0506

sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Federal Defendants

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on June 9, 2017, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court via the 

CM/ECF system, which will provide service to all attorneys of record.

/s/ Sean C. Duffy

Sean C. Duffy

Attorney for Federal Defendants
#### Guideone Specialty Mutual Insurance Company et al., Respondents, v State Insurance Fund, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[941 NYS2d 506]

Appeal by the defendant State Insurance Fund from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated January 13, 2011, which denied its motion pursuant to CELR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant State Insurance Fund to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it is granted.

A claim for money damages against the State must be litigated in the Court of Claims *(see*Court of Claims Act § 9 [2]). “The State Insurance Fund is a state agency, and, consequently, *701claims against it for money damages must be litigated in the Court of Claims, rather than in the Supreme Court” *(D’Angelo v State Ins. Fund,*48 AD3d 400, 402 [2008]). Although denominated as an action for a declaratory judgment, the complaint in this case shows that this is essentially an action to recover money damages against a state agency, for which the proper forum is the Court of Claims *(id.; see Miraglia v State Ins. Fund,*32 Misc 3d 471, 474 [2011]). Although the plaintiffs correctly note that the appellant raised this issue for the first time in its reply papers *(see*CPLR 2214; *Fenner v County of Nassau,*80 AD3d 555, 556 [2011]), “a court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived and may, in fact, be raised at any time” *(D’Angelo v State Ins. Fund,*48 AD3d at 402).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the motion of the defendant State Insurance Fund to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In view of the foregoing, we do not address the parties’ remaining contentions. Dillon, J.E, Florio, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

FREDDIE LEE BROWN, JR., 

CASE NO. 3:15-CV-1585-HZ 

Plaintiff, 

VERDICT FORM 

v. 

CASCADE MANAGEMENT, INC., 

Defendant. 

We, the jury, being first duly empaneled and sworn in the above-entitled cause, do 

unanimously find as follows: 

1. Has Plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiffs race was the 

sole reason for the Defendant's decision to discharge Plaintiff? 

Yes No --- ~-------

If Yes, answer Question No. 5. IfNo, answer Question No. 2. 

2. Has Plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiffs race was a 

motivating factor in Defendant's decision to discharge Plaintiff? 

Yes No --- ------~ 

If Yes, answer Question No. 3. IfNo, answer Question No. 5. 

3. Has Defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant's decision 

to discharge Plaintiff was also motivated by a lawful reason? 

Yes No --- ---

If Yes, answer Question No. 4. IfNo, answer Question No. 5. 

Verdict Form - Page 1 

Case 3:15-cv-01585-HZ Document 93 Filed 10/25/17 Page 1 of 3
4. Has Defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made 

the same decision to discharge Plaintiff even if Plaintiffs race played no role in 

Defendant's decision to discharge him? 

Yes No --- ---

Answer Question No. 5. 

5. Has Plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff was subject to a 

racially hostile work environment by Defendant? 

__,___,.__ Yes No ---

Answer Question No. 6. 

6. Has Plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was terminated in 

retaliation by Defendant? 

___ Yes X No 

Answer Questions 7 and 8 if you answered Yes to any of the following questions: 1, 5, 

and 6. Also, answer Questions 7 and 8 if you answered Yes to Question 2 and No to 

Question 3. Also, answer Questions 7 and 8 if you answered Yes to Questions 2 and 3 

and No to Question 4. 

Sign and date the verdict form if you answered No to all of the following Questions: 1, 2, 

5, and 6. Also, sign and date the verdict form if you answered No to Questions 1, 5, and 

6, and yes to Question 4. 

7. What are Plaintiff's damages? 

Non-economic damages 

8. Do you award punitive damages against Defendant? 

-~-

Yes No ---

If you answered yes to Question No. 8, answer Question No. 9. If you answered no to 

Question No. 8, sign and date this Verdict Form. 

Verdict Form-Page 2 

Case 3:15-cv-01585-HZ Document 93 Filed 10/25/17 Page 2 of 3
9. What amount of punitive damages do you award against Defendant? 

- ' 0 0 

Punitive Damages $ '/A!> 0 vtl 

The Presiding Juror should sign and date this Verdict Form. 

DATED this 

Verdict Form - Page 3 

Case 3:15-cv-01585-HZ Document 93 Filed 10/25/17 Page 3 of 3
1051 NW Bond, Suite 310, Bend, OR97703

Phone: (541) 617-0555 Fax: (541)617-0984

E-Mail: tim@rdwyer.com

PLAINTIFF’S TENTH STATUS REPORT – Page 1

TIMOTHY L. WILLIAMS, OSB No. 034940

E-Mail: tim@rdwyer.com

Dwyer Williams Dretke Attorneys, P.C.

1051 NW Bond Street, Suite 310

Bend, OR 97703

Phone: 541.617.0555

Fax: 541.617.0984

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION

Pursuant to the Court’s March 2, 2018 Scheduling Order (Dkt. 29), Plaintiff provides the 

following status of the related underlying case, Benjamin McCormick v. State of Oregon, Court 

of Appeals for the State of Oregon, Case No. A159931:

1. Opening Brief Filed: December 8, 2015.

2. Answering Brief Filed: March 8, 2016.

3. Reply Brief Filed: May 24, 2016.

4. Oregon Court of Appeals Oral Argument: October 11, 2016.

5. Additional Authorities Filed: on or about November 22, 2016.

BENJAMIN MCCORMICK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cv-01363-MO

PLAINTIFF’S TENTH STATUS REPORT
1051 NW Bond, Suite 310, Bend, OR97701

Phone: (541) 617-0555 Fax: (541)617-0984

E-Mail: tim@rdwyer.com

PLAINTIFF’S TENTH STATUS REPORT – Page 2

6. OTHER: The Oregon Court of Appeals has yet to issue its decision in the related 

underlying case. The parties still anticipate that, given the novelty and complexity of 

the issue, the Oregon Court of Appeals would need quite a bit of time post-argument 

to issue its decision. Moreover, we still believe that the Court of Appeals decision 

will likely be petitioned to the Oregon Supreme Court for review. Given the 

importance and novelty of the underlying issues, Plaintiff anticipates that the Oregon 

Supreme Court will grant review.

If the Court needs any further information as to the above, counsel for Plaintiff would be 

happy to provide it.

Dated: March 1, 2018.

DWYER WILLIAMS

DRETKE ATTORNEYS, P.C.

By: s/ Tim Williams 

Williams Tim Williams, OSB No. 034940 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

Trial Attorneys: Same