alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

VRAJESHKUMAR PATEL, § individually and on behalf of all § No. 347, 2021 others similarly situated, and § derivatively on behalf of Nominal § Defendant TALOS ENERGY INC., § § Court Below—Court of Chancery Plaintiff Below, § of the State of Delaware Appellant, § § C.A. No. 2020-0418 v. § § TIMOTHY S. DUNCAN, et al ., § § Defendants Below, § Appellees, § § and § § TALOS ENERGY INC., § § Nominal Defendant Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: May 11, 2022 Decided: May 25, 2022

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA

, VAUGHN

, TRAYNOR , and MONTGOMERY-REEVES , Justices, constituting the Court en Banc

. ORDER

This 25 th day of May 2022, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs

and the record below, and following oral argument, we find it evident that the

judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the

reasons stated in the court’s Memorandum Opinion dated October 4, 2021.2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of

Chancery is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS AMENDED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND DECEMBER 31, 1996 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       6,288,000               5,027,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               70,690,000             107,464,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 5,590,000               6,644,000
<INVENTORY>                                 46,757,000              95,127,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                       1,863,000               3,325,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             138,085,000             239,132,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                 174,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  38,470,000             103,470,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               138,085,000             239,132,000
<SALES>                                     59,071,000              75,069,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            72,608,000              95,054,000
<CGS>                                       15,650,000              18,089,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               45,327,000              55,042,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,878,000              13,285,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,787,000               2,706,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,062,000               6,778,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,554,000              17,243,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   641,000               3,063,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         10,913,000              14,180,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,913,000              14,180,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .63                     .77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .63                     .77
        

</TABLE>
#### Fahd A. Ali, Respondent, v Weichert Realtors, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 713]

Appeal from an order of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J), entered March 15, 2011. The order affirmed an amended judgment of the Utica City Court (Albert A. Alteri, J.H.O.), entered July 30, 2010 in favor of plaintiff.

*1458It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00103-CV

Joseph Maurice Gilmore and Renee Le Doux Gilmore, Appellants

v.

Kathy Kramer, John Woodworth, Sr., and Jessica Ricotta, Appellees

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF BURNET COUNTY

NO. 53106, THE HONORABLE LINDA M. BAYLESS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants Joseph Maurice Gilmore and Renee Le Doux Gilmore have filed an 

unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant appellants’ motion and dismiss the appeal. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Kelly, and Theofanis

Dismissed on Appellants’ Motion

Filed: January 19, 2023
BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366 

United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #992984 

GEOFFREY A. BARROW 

CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #012571 

Assistant United States Attorneys 

ethan.knight@usdoj.gov

geoffrey.barrow@usdoj.gov 

craig.gabriel@usdoj.gov

1000 SW Third Ave., Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204-2902 

Telephone: (503) 727-1000 

Attorneys for United States of America 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 v. 

AMMON BUNDY, et al., 

 Defendants.

3:16-CR-00051-BR

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

INSPECT GRAND JURY MINUTES 

RECORDS (#481)

 The United States of America, by Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the 

District of Oregon, and through Ethan D. Knight, Geoffrey A. Barrow, and Craig J. Gabriel, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, hereby responds to defendants’ Motion to Inspect Grand Jury 

Minutes, Rolls, Master Wheel, and All Records of the Grand Jury Selection Process (ECF No. 

481), filed by defendant Ryan Bundy on behalf of all defendants. 

Defendant’s Motion seeks an order allowing him or his authorized agent “to inspect the 

grand jury minutes, rolls, master wheel, and all other records of the grand jury selection process 

in this case.” (Def.’s Mot. 1-2). At the May 4, 2016, status conference, the Court identified 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 568 Filed 05/16/16 Page 1 of 2
Government’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Inspect Grand Jury 

Records (#481) 

Page 2

the grand juries that heard defendants’ case and provided information regarding the selection of 

grand jurors in the District of Oregon. At that time, the Court indicated that it would disclose 

additional information regarding the grand jury selection process by way of an affidavit from the 

Court’s Jury Administrator. 

 On May 11, 2016, Teresa D. Glover, Jury Administrator for the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Oregon filed a Declaration in this case (ECF No. 538). Ms. Glover’s Declaration 

outlined and attached the district’s Juror Management Plan. The Declaration explains the 

district’s master jury wheels and provided a detailed description of the selection and composition 

of the grand juries that heard defendants’ case. 

 The government believes that the information provided by the Court and set forth in 

Ms. Glover’s Declaration addresses Mr. Bundy’s Motion. The government reached out to 

Ms. Ludwig, Ryan Bundy’s attorney advisor, to determine if there are outstanding issues, but has 

not heard back from her. 

 In light of the information provided by the Court and the Declaration filed in this case, 

defendant’s Motion to Inspect should be denied as moot. 

 Dated this 16th day of April 2016. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 BILLY J. WILLIAMS 

 United States Attorney 

 s/ Geoffrey A. Barrow 

 ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #992984 

 GEOFFREY A. BARROW 

 CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #012571 

 Assistant United States Attorneys 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 568 Filed 05/16/16 Page 2 of 2
732 A.2d 1199

#### In the Matter of Jane PATTERSON-AULD.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 8, 1999.

*270
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 8th day of July, 1999, The Report and Recommendations of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated June 9, 1999, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that JANE PATTERSON-AULD, who has been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that she has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          46,958
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,883
<ALLOWANCES>                                       486
<INVENTORY>                                      5,777
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,472
<PP&E>                                           7,791
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,615
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,648
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,649
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           203
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,796
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,648
<SALES>                                         16,782
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,782
<CGS>                                            5,806
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,806
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,478
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (576)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,074
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,303
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,771
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,771
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      54,286,838
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,530,645
<ALLOWANCES>                                   893,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            82,759,173
<PP&E>                                       4,135,511
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,622,870
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              96,532,655
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,280,182
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    72,273,224
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,081,183
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                96,532,655
<SALES>                                     10,093,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,747,419
<CGS>                                        1,587,874
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,833,649
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,299,028
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (446,866)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,061,608
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,102,179
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,959,429
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,959,429
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David Alfonso HERNANDEZ-HAROS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-10315.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007 *.

Filed April 20, 2007.

Jerry R. Albert, Esq., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Evo A. Deconcini U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard Madril, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

David Alfonso Hernandez-Haros appeals from the 87-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(A)(ii)(II), 952(a), 960(a)(1), and 960(b)(l)(B)(ii). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hernandez-Haros contends that the district court erred by failing to apply a downward adjustment for being a minimal or minor participant pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We disagree. Because the record reflects that Hernandez-Haros knowingly imported a substantial amount of drugs with the expectation of receiving an economic benefit, there was no clear error. *See United States v. Davis,*36 F.3d 1424, 1436-37 (9th Cir.1994) (affirming denial of a role adjustment where defendant knew that he was carrying drugs and was prepared to accept an economic benefit); *United States v. Lui,*941 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir.1991) (stating that “possession of a substantial amount of narcotics” is grounds for refusing to grant either a minor or minimal participant adjustment).

Hernandez-Haros also contends that, at sentencing, the district court erred in failing to take into consideration that he was subject to more severe conditions of im*776prisonment as a result of his status as a deportable alien. The record reflects, however, that the district court noted Hernandez-Haros’ status as a deportable alien, and considered factors pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), such as the need for deterrence, and for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense. We conclude that the sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable. *See United States v. Marcial-Santiago,*447 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.) (affirming where “[t]he district court gave thoughtful attention to factors recognized in § 3553(a) and exercised sound discretion to ensure that the punishment fit the crime and the circumstances of the appellants”), *cert. denied sub nom. Acosta-Franco v. United States,*— U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 309, 166 L.Ed.2d 232 (2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Michele O. Miller and Robert H. Steelhammer v. Green Bank, N.A.

Appellate case number: 01-18-00070-CV

Trial court case number: 2016-25547A

Trial court: 281st District Court of Harris County

On February 5, 2019, this Court abated the appeal because appellant, Robert H. 

Steelhammer, petitioned for voluntary bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the 

Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, under case number 18-30385. See TEX. R. APP. P.

8.2. Through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, this Court has 

learned that the bankruptcy case was closed on October 8, 2019.

Unless any party to the appeal files a response by February 5, 2021, indicating that the 

parties no longer wish to dismiss the appeal, this appeal will be reinstated and dismissed in 

accordance with the motion filed on January 23, 2019.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Peter Kelly_______

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___January 5, 2021____
BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366 

United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

KATHLEEN L. BICKERS, OSB #85151 

Assistant United States Attorney 

1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

Telephone: (503) 727-1100 

Facsimile Telephone: (503) 727-1117 

Internet E-mail Address: bob.nesler@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Civil No. 

Plaintiff, COMPLAINT 

Claim for Debt 

v. 

ANN M. PATRICK, 

Defendant. 

Plaintiff, United States of America, acting herein by the United States Attorney for the 

District of Oregon, complains and alleges: 

1. That this action is brought by the United States of America, withjurisdiction provided 

by 28 U.S.C. Section 1345. 

2. That the defendant, Ann M. Patrick , is a resident of the State of Oregon within the 

Court's jurisdiction. 

PAGE 1 -COMPLAINT 

Case 3:16-cv-00131-KI Document 1 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 2
3. That the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the principal amount of$27,634.69, 

plus interest on this principal computed at the rate of 8.25 percent per annum in the amount of 

$28,793.42 as of September 25, 2015, and interest continuing thereafter on this principal at the 

rate of 8.25 percent annum, until the date of judgment. See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and 

incorporated herein. 

4. Demand has been made upon the defendant by the plaintiff for the sum due but the 

amount due remains unpaid. 

Wherefore, the plaintiff prays judgment against the defendant for the total of$56,428.11, 

inclusive of interest of$28,793.42 at 8.25 percent per annum on the principal of$27,634.69 

which has accrued as of September 25, 20 15, and will continue to accrue until date of judgment. 

Plaintiff further demands, pursuant to 28 U.S. C., Section 1961, that interest on the judgment be 

at the legal rate until paid in full. 

Dated this .L~ day of January, 2016. 

PAGE 2 -COMPLAINT 

BILLY J. WILLIAMS 

United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

KATHLEEN L. BICKERS 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Case 3:16-cv-00131-KI Document 1 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 2
Order entered April 12, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00186
- CR
EX PARTE ZAVIER COMMINEY On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, T exas Trial Court Cause No. F18
- 76079
- V

O RDER On February 24, 2021, appellant filed with the trial court clerk a notice of appeal stating his intent to appeal “the trial court’s Order denying his Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus” in this case. The notice of appeal was filed with this Court on March 25, 2021. On March 29, 2021, the clerk’s record was filed. The clerk’s record does not contain an application for writ of habeas corpus nor does it contain an order denying a writ application other tha n one entered in 2019

. Instead, the clerk’s record contains a set of “Findings,” signed by a magistrate on January 11, 2021, stating appellant is charged with murder, denying appellant a personal bond, and setting bail at $5,000,000

.On March 31, 2021, ap pellant filed a docketing statement indicating that he

was appealing an order entered February 10, 2021 that denied his writ application. The docketing statement further indicates that appellant had not requested a clerk’s record or reporter’s record, but that both would be requested on March 31, 2021. This Court has jurisdiction to review an order den ying a pretrial writ of habeas corpus seeking the setting of reasonable bail or a reduction in bail , but it does not have jurisdiction to consider a pretria l motion seeking the same relief.
See Ragston v. State , 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Ex parte Gill , 213 S.W.3d 425, 426 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (reviewing court of appeals determination on pretrial habeas proceeding seeking personal bond or re duction of bail); see also Sanderson v. State , No. 02

- 20

- 00006

- CR, 2020 WL 827590, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Feb. 20, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction appeal purporting to be appeal from denia l of pretrial habeas application where record showed appeal was from denial of motion seeking bail reduction). Because the clerk’s record filed does not show the Court has jurisdiction, we ORDER appellant to file, within FOURTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, a jurisdictional brief explaining the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. The State may respond with its own jurisdictional brief within FOURTEEN DAYS of the filing of appellant’s jurisdictional brief.We further ORDER the Dallas County District Cl erk to file , within

FOURTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, either (1) a supplemental clerk’s record containing appellant’s pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus, any response from the State, and the trial court’s order denying relief entered on or about February 10, 2021, or (2) a letter verifying the Dallas County District Clerk does not possess any of the documents ordered above. After supplementation of the record and the filing of jurisdictional briefs, if any, the Court will either dismiss t he appeal for want of jurisdiction or issue an order setting further deadlines in this case.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE