alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
James L. MARTIN, petitioner, v. NATIONAL GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 15-1344.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware denied.

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlton NALLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-11164

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

Susan Cowger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Roderick Christopher White, Law Offices of Roderick C. White, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Carlton Nalley has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Nalley has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Julian Kenneth ARMEL, Jr., petitioner, v. VIRGINIA.

No. 15-1315.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
Felix JIMENEZ, petitioner, v. Sean MEDEIROS, Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Norfolk.

No. 16-5922.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 23.1

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our reports dated
December 10, 2007 accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule and the
effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting included in the Annual Report
of Semitool, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2007. We hereby consent to
the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Semitool,
Inc. on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-112964 and File No. 333-39492) and on Forms S-8 (File No.
333-114284, File No. 333-62474, File No. 333-89562 and File No. 333-142815).

/s/GRANT THORNTON LLP

Salt Lake City, UtahDecember 10, 2007
EXHIBIT 21


Subsidiaries of the Registrant
- - ------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                       <C>
1.   Compania de Juguetes Mexicanos, S.A. de C.V. (99%)   (Mexico)
2.   MEI Holding Company F Corp.                          (Delaware)
3.   MEI Holding Company S Corp.                          (Delaware)
4.   MRV, Inc.                                            (Delaware)
5.   Marvel Characters, Inc.                              (Delaware)
6.   Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc.                     (Delaware)
7.   Marvel Restaurant Venture Corp.                      (Delaware)
8.   Spiderman Merchandising L.P. (50%)                   (Partnership)
9.   Toy Biz International Limited (99%)                  (Hong Kong)
10.  UMRV Co. (30%)                                       (Partnership)
</TABLE>
William E. VUKICH, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA, et al.

No. 16-5859.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                      DIGITAL GENERATIONS SYSTEMS, INC.
                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE
                                COMMON SHARES
                 (in thousands, except for per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                              Year Ended           Year Ended          Year Ended 
                             December 31,         December 31,        December 31,
                                1998                 1997                1996
                            _________________________________________________________

<S>                          <C>                  <C>                 <C>
Net loss                     $    (30,237)        $    (14,775)        $      (9,127)
                             =============        ==============       ==============

Weighted Average common
shares outstanding                  16,272                11,893               10,488
                             =============        ==============       ==============

Basic and diluted net 
loss per common share(1)     $      (1.97)        $       (2.52)       $       (0.87)
                             =============        ==============       ==============
</TABLE>


(1) For the year ended December 31, 1998, the net loss per share was computed as
    a net loss of $30,237,000 plus $1,764,000 relating to the preferred stock 
    deemed dividend divided by the weighted average common shares outstanding.
    For the year ended December 31, 1997, the net loss per share was computed as
    a net loss of $14,775,000 plus $15,161,000 relating to the preferred stock
    deemed dividend divided by the weighted average common shares outstanding.
   (See Note 8 to the Consolidated Financial Statements)
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the periodic report of PLXTechnology, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period endedJune 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"Report"), I, Rafael Torres,****Chief Financial Officer****ofthe Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of myknowledge:

the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 ofthe Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.  

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed,"filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: August 5, 2005
                          /s/ RafaelTorres	 
Rafael Torres, Chief FinancialOfficer
Order entered May 15, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00696-CR

GUSTAVO RENE CASTILLO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F09-58463-Y

ORDER

On April 10, 2013, this Court ordered the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within 

fifteen days, a supplemental record containing the Criminal Court Fee Docket Sheet for this case. 

To date, we have not received the supplemental record, nor have we had any correspondence 

from the Dallas County District Clerk regarding the status of the supplemental record.

According, we ORDER the Dallas County Clerk to file, within TEN DAYS of the date 

of this order, a supplemental record containing the Criminal Court Fee Docket sheet for this case. 

If the supplemental record is not filed within the time specified, the Court will utilize the 

available remedies to obtain the supplemental clerk’s record.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Michael Snipes, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 7; Gary Fitzsimmons, 
Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal Records 

Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JAN 10 2003

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHNNY LYNN STEIN, aka Johnny

Stein,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

E. J. GALLEGOS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 02-1390

D.C. No. 02-Z-1238

(D. Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument. 
The petitioner appeals the dismissal by the United States District Court for

the District of Colorado of his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241. We affirm. 

In the petition filed in the district court, the petitioner challenged the

legality of his conviction, following the entry of a guilty plea, for using and

carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense entered by the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He argued that his conviction is

invalid under Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995).

Normally, “‘[a] petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the execution of a

sentence rather than its validity and must be filed in the district where the

prisoner is confined. A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition attacks the legality of

detention, and must be filed in the district that imposed the sentence.’” Haugh v.

Booker , 210 F.3d 1147, 1149 (10th Cir.2000) (quoting Bradshaw v. Story , 86

F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir.1996)). Section 2241 “is not an additional, alternative, or

supplemental remedy to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Bradshaw , 86 F.3d at 166. Only if

the petitioner shows that § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” to challenge the

validity of a judgment or sentence may a prisoner petition for such a remedy

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Id. “Failure to obtain relief under § 2255 does not

establish that the remedy so provided is either inadequate or ineffective.” Id.

(quotation omitted). 

The petitioner has not established the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of 28
U.S.C. § 2255. 

Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED . The mandate

shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam
Exhibit (d)(3)

AMENDED and RESTATED
In re David Andrew CHRISTENSEN, petitioner.

No. 16-6345.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until December 27, 2016, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6743

CHARLES D. JACKSON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

M. WADE, Sheriff/Head of jail; A. GREGORY, Chief/Head of operations; 

DISMUKE, Captain/Head of security,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01158-LMB-IDD)

Submitted: September 14, 2021 Decided: September 20, 2021

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Deland Jackson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Simone T. Williams, Leslie A. 

Winneberger, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Glen Allen, Virginia, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles D. Jackson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court, Jackson v. Wade, No. 1:19-cv-01158-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2021), 

but modify the court’s order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. We deny 

Jackson’s motions for appointment of counsel and we dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
Louis Arthur CALVIN, petitioner, v. Ron DAVIS, Warden.

No. 16-6277.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: THOMAS C. WILLIS 

DOCKET NUMBER: 237 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D.C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 237 

(Administrative Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Thomas C. Willis 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

The complaint charges that during July 1973, Thomas C. Willis, a registered 

floor broker, unlawfully matched numerous customers' buy and sell commodity 

futures orders. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when there has been a determination that the evidence substantiates allegations 

in the complaint. A determination is considered as having been made when a 

decision of the Administrative Law Judge becomes final or, after appeal, a 

decision is made by the Judicial Officer of the Department. Complaints are 

filed in the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and 

are a matter of public record. Pending disposition of a complaint, it is the 

policy of the CEA not to comment or elaborate on charges contained therein or to 

discuss evidence on which it is based. 

A public hearing on the complaint will be held before an Administrative Law 

Judge in Chicago, Illinois, at a place, date, and time to be specified at a 

later date. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sergio Gallardo ROSA, also known as Sergio Rene Gallardo, also known as Javier Arango, also known as Isauro Isialemus Ambrocio, also known as Manuel A. Solis Pineda, also known as Manuel Ruiez, also known as Jose Victor Silva, also known as Jorge Davila, also known as Julio Somayoa, also known as Sergio Victor Gallardo-Rosa, also known as Victor Gallardo-Rosa, also known as Sergio Victor Rosa-Gallardo, also known as Ascencion Garcia Martinez, also known as Sergio Gallardorosa, also known as Sergio Victor Rosa Gallardo, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-20029

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 30, 2012.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Lee Harper Wilson, Counsel, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Sergio Gallardo Rosa has moved for leave *387to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Rosa has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate 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.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *387published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
No. 202.

#### Stone et al., Trustees, *v.*White, Former Collector.

November 25, 1935.

Upon consideration of the motion of petitioners, and the time for presenting a petition for rehearing of the application for writ of certiorari herein having been extended to the end of the present term.

*551
      *Mr. Thomas Allen*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Reed, Assistant Attorney General Wide-man,*and *Messrs. James W. Morris*and *Joseph M. Jones*for respondent.

It is ordered that the entry of judgment herein by the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts be, and it hereby is, stayed until the expiration of the present term of this Court, or until further order of the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                   315,128
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,050
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,050
<PP&E>                                         171,223
<DEPRECIATION>                                  69,936
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 449,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,090,812
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,271,584
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,281,787)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   449,591
<SALES>                                      1,847,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,847,589
<CGS>                                        1,553,471
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,699,791
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             102,459
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (354,624)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (354,624)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (184,872)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (539,496)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

          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 ChrisKen  Growth & Income L.P.
II, a Delaware  limited  partnership  (the  "Company"),  on Form  10-QSB for the
period  ending  June  30,  2002,  as  filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  John F.  Kennedy,  Chief
Executive Officer of ChrisKen Income  Properties,  Inc. II, the managing general
partner 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, to my knowledge
and based on my review of the Report:


     1. the Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  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 financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





                             By:      ChrisKen Income Properties, Inc. II
                                      Managing General Partner


                             By:      /s/ John F. Kennedy
                                      -----------------------------------
                                      John F. Kennedy
                                      Chief Executive Officer

                                      August 14, 2002
Stuart Jeffrey HARRIS, petitioner, v. Kevin D. McLEOD, et al.

No. 16-6192.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors
DG FastChannel, Inc. f/k/a Digital Generation Systems, Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-25701, 333-04676, 333-60611, 333-65978 and
333-137959) on Form S-8 and registration statements (Nos. 333-70045, 333-65980, 333-112122 and 333-137958) on
Form S-3 of DG FastChannel, Inc., (f/k/a/ Digital Generation Systems, Inc.) of our report dated March 30, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet
of DG FastChannel, Inc. as of December 31, 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the
years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2006, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2006, annual report on
Form 10-K of DG FastChannel, Inc.

Our
audit report refers to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004),Share-Based Payment,
and the provisions of Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108,Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements when Quantifying
Misstatements in the Current Year Financial Statements.



Dallas,
TX
March 14, 2008

---



QuickLinks
James Paul DESPER, aka Jamie Paul Desper, petitioner, v. John WOODSON, Warden.

No. 15-9834.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Betty CAULER, petitioner, v. LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC., dba Lehigh Valley Hospital & Health Network.

No. 16-354.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
No. 259.

#### Blue Rose Oil Co. *v.*Illinois ex rel. Kerner, Attorney General.

October 14, 1935.

*Mr. Justus Chancellor*for petitioner.

*Mr. G. F. Mulligan, Jr.,*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied.
:; 

COMMENT 

REF: Proposed Rules for Trading Off the Centralized Market 

To whom it may concern, 

CJ 

-.. , 

-:·) 

c"::J --.-I ·-:• 

-1 ::~ -·~ 

I believe the minimum block size requiremert~s co 

for many commodities are ridiculously low. It is Jiy i§~ -1 -- understanding that a block trade should be of a size --~~ ~-- ! 'I 

that the active trading community (not just one ~::; v~ 

trader) could not fill in an orderly fashion. Based on 

the current levels, it is obvious the exchanges are not 

capable of determining these levels. The CFTC 

should step up and take control of these barely 

regulated trades. 

Thank you for your consideration, 

. ' i :t 

• .. :..' 

; ! j V"'''') 

......... I :: 

. l .. 

\.n 

. · ... 

. '_ ...... ·-· ·· ...... •.. i 

·,=.; 

.. '""} 

l: \ 

· - V1 '·· 

•,, ;I 

1 . d
Bruno SALGADO, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 16-5681.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.