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

Eastern District of Texas

4/20/23

Case 4:23-cv-00348-ALM Document 4 Filed 04/20/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 510
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) . I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

Other (specify):

. My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 4:23-cv-00348-ALM Document 4 Filed 04/20/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 511
Cite as 2013 Ark. 442

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. 

IN RE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Opinion Delivered October 31, 2013

PER CURIAM

We appoint Judge David Hudson, Sebastian County Judge; Tina Owens, Deputy

Director, Arkansas Department of Emergency Management; Honorable Stephanie Casady,

Saline County District Court–Bryant; and Mikki Hastings, Clark County Office of

Emergency Management, to the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Security and

Emergency Preparedness for three-year terms to expire on September 30, 2016. We thank

them for their willingness to serve on this important committee.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20212

Summary Calendar

 

JAMES BARRNETT WILKIE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DALE MYERS, Sheriff,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-95-CV-1520

- - - - - - - - - -

January 26, 1999

Before JOHNSON, DUHE’, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Wilkie, Texas prison inmate # 348952, appeals the

dismissal of his civil rights action against former Sheriff Dale

Myers of Walker County, Deputy Sheriff Mike Hess, and Jailer

James Downer. The suit was based on events which allegedly

occurred when Wilkie was incarcerated in the Walker County Jail. 

Finding no abuse of discretion, we AFFIRM the district court’s

dismissal of the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
No. 97-20212

-2-

Wilkie has abandoned his claims that the Spears hearing he

received was inadequate, and of substandard jail conditions, by

failing to brief them. See Al-Ra’id v. Ingle, 69 F.3d 28, 33

(5th Cir. 1995); Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir.

1985). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by

dismissing Wilkie’s claims of inadequate medical attention,

failure to protect him from other inmates, and loss of personal

property, because he failed to state or even suggest that Sheriff

Myers was personally involved in the relevant events. See

Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303-04 (5th Cir. 1987); 28

U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). The district court did not err by dismissing

Wilkie’s property-loss claim against Hess, because Wilkie has an

adequate remedy therefor under Texas state law. Murphy v.

Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 1994).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by

dismissing Wilkie’s claim that Downer withheld his medications

from him, because it is refuted by Wilkie’s medical records. See

Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 233-34 (5th Cir. 1995). Nor

did the court err by dismissing Wilkie’s claim that Downer

retaliated against him for requesting his medications. Wilkie’s

testimony at the Spears hearing shows that this claim is based

only on Wilkie’s personal belief, which is insufficient. See

Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 310 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

118 S. Ct. 559 (1997).

Wilkie contends that he is entitled to relief on grounds

that his request for the Spears hearing transcript was denied by
No. 97-20212

-3-

unnamed personnel of the state prison unit where the hearing was

held. If Wilkie had made an inquiry, he would have learned that

the transcript is included in the appellate record. Wilkie could

have borrowed the record from this court for use in preparing his

brief, but he did not do so. Wilkie is not entitled to relief on

this claim because he was not prejudiced by the prison

personnel’s not responding to his request. 

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Denied and Opinion Filed October 21, 2016 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01219-CV 

IN RE ALFRED LEE STONE, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 283rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-91-42452 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Francis, Fillmore, and Stoddart 

Opinion by Justice Francis 

Relator files this petition for writ of mandamus asking the Court to order the trial court to 

rule on four post-conviction motions purportedly filed on November 1, 2014 and to withdraw an 

order admitting certain expert testimony into evidence at relator’s 1991 trial. 

To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, relator must show the trial 

court violated a ministerial duty and no adequate remedy at law exists. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 

391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). Further, as the party seeking 

relief, relator has the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus record to 

establish his right to relief. Lizcano v. Chatham, 416 S.W.3d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) 

(orig. proceeding) (Alcala, J. concurring); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) 

(orig. proceeding). The mandamus record before us does not include a certified or sworn copy of 

the trial court’s docket sheet or other proof establishing relator filed the motions for which he 

seeks orders and showing the trial court failed to rule on the motions. TEX. R. APP. P. 
 –2– 

52.3(k)(1)(a); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a). Absent such a record, we cannot conduct a meaningful 

review of relator’s claims. Lizcano, 416 S.W.3d at 863 (Alcala, J. concurring). As for the 

request that we order the trial court to reverse an order admitting evidence at the 1991 trial, we 

lack jurisdiction under article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 11.07 (West 2015); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1991) (orig. proceeding). 

Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus as to the request that we order 

the trial court to rule and DISMISS the petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction as 

to the request that we order the trial court to withdraw the order admitting expert testimony at 

trial. 

161219F.P05 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE
ALEXSAM, INC., petitioner, v. WILDCARD SYSTEMS, INC., et al.

No. 17-1483.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
William A. PARRISH, Jr., petitioner, v. Lyneal WAINWRIGHT, Warden.

No. 18-5946.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

I, Kay L. Toolson,CEO of Monaco Coach Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theQuarterly Report of Monaco Coach Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended September 29, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in such Quarterly Report of Monaco Coach Corporation on Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Monaco Coach Corporation.

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Kay L. Toolson      |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Kay L. Toolson          |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

I, P. MartinDaley, CFO of Monaco Coach Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant  to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Monaco CoachCorporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2007fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in suchQuarterly Report of Monaco Coach Corporation on Form 10-Q fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofMonaco Coach Corporation.

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ P. Martin Daley     |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |   | P. Martin Daley         |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 22

- 3 40 3

_____________________________
J AMES B ERNARD C AMPBELL , Appellant,

v.

R ICKY D. D IXON , Secretary
, Florida Department o f Corrections,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County

. George M. Wright , Judge

. May 3, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , K ELSEY , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

James Bernard Campbell , pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham
, Assistant Attorney General
, Tallahassee; D an Johnson , General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee , for Appellee.
**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**

 

I, Greg Grosvenor, Chief Financial Officer, in connection with the Report on 10-K of Pernix Group, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, (the “Report”) hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 
| /s/   Greg Grosvenor         |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
|                         |   |
| Greg   Grosvenor             |   |
|                         |   |
| Chief   Financial Officer    |   |
|                         |   |
| Dated:   April 13, 2011 |   |

 

----
EX-4.71





 Exhibit 4.71 

POWER OF ATTORNEY 
 I, Zhixiang Liang, a
citizen of the People’s Republic of China (the “ PRC”) with ID No. and a shareholder holding 50% equity interests of Beijing Perusal Technology Co., Ltd. (“Beijing Perusal”), hereby irrevocably authorizes,
pursuant to the Proxy Agreement dated hereof between me and Baidu, Inc., as well as by designation of Baidu, Inc., Hailong Xiang with the following powers and rights in respect of my existing and future equity holding in Beijing Perusal (“My
Equity”) during the term of this Power of Attorney: 
 Hailong Xiang is hereby authorized as my sole and exclusive agent to exercise on my behalf
all of my rights as a shareholder to vote at shareholders’ meetings of Beijing Perusal in accordance with PRC laws and the articles of Beijing Perusal, including without limitation the right to sell or transfer any or all of My Equity, and to
designate and appoint the general manager of Beijing Perusal as my authorized representative at the shareholders’ meeting of Beijing Perusal. 
 Such
authorization is premised on the condition that Hailong Xiang is an employee of Baidu, Inc. and its affiliates, and Baidu, Inc. agrees to such authorization. Once Hailong Xiang’s employment with Baidu, Inc. and its affiliates terminates, or I
am notified by Baidu, Inc. to terminate such authorization, I will withdraw the authorization made hereunder immediately and designate/authorize any other person nominated by Baidu, Inc. to exercise all of my rights as a shareholder to vote at
shareholders’ meetings of Beijing Perusal. 
 Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, this Power of Attorney is irrevocable and continues to have
effect as of the date hereof as long as I holds equity interests in Beijing Perusal. 
  

			
	(Signature):	 	 /s/ Zhixiang Liang


 Date: March 31, 2018 

  
 1
Abraham J. BONOWITZ, Douglas A. Pagitt, Lisa S. Harper, Suezann K. Bosler, Arthur J. Laffin, Randy Gardner, Derrick W. Jamison, Thomas W. Muther, Jr., Shane A. Claiborne, Sam R. Sheppard, and John M. Travers, petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6080.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
EX-4.64





 Exhibit 4.64 

Power of Attorney 
 I, Yanhong Li, a
citizen of the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC”) with ID No. and the shareholder holding 99.5% equity interests in Beijing Baidu Netcom Science Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Baidu Netcom”), hereby irrevocably authorizes
pursuant to the Proxy Agreement dated hereof by myself and Baidu, Inc. and designation of Baidu, Inc., Hailong Xiang with the following powers and rights in connection with my current and future shareholding in the Baidu Netcom during the term of
this Power of Attorney: 
 To exercise solely and exclusively on my behalf all of the voting rights as a shareholder at the shareholders’ meeting of
Baidu Netcom under the PRC laws and the articles of association of Baidu Netcom, including without limitation any vote on sale or transfer of any or all of equity interests in Baidu Netcom, and designating and appointing the general manager of Baidu
Netcom as my authorized representative on the shareholders’ meeting of Baidu Netcom. 
 Such authorization is premised on the condition that Hailong
Xiang is an employee of Baidu, Inc. and its affiliates, and Baidu, Inc. agrees to such authorization. Once Hailong Xiang is no longer an employee of Baidu, Inc. or I am notified by Baidu, Inc. to terminate such authorization, I will immediately
withdraw such authorization to him and designate/authorize any other person nominated by Baidu, Inc. to exercise all of the voting rights on my behalf at the shareholders’ meeting of Baidu Netcom. 

Unless otherwise expressly provided herein and as long as I am a holder of equity interests in Baidu Netcom, this Power of Attorney is irrevocable and
continues to have effect as of the date hereof . 
  

			
	(Signature):	 	 /s/ Yanhong Li

	Date:	 	March 31, 2018
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT FEB RUARY 5, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 12358 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 5 1 8 - C R - T - 2 7 - E AJ U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J A V I E R M A R T I N E Z , a. k. a. V i ct or M anuel D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 5, 2008) B efo re D U B IN A , P R Y O R an dF A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: H ow ar d A nd er son, an A ss i st antF eder alP ub l i c D ef ender and appo i nt ed2

c ouns e l f orJ a vi e rM a rt i ne z , ha s f i l e d am ot i on t o w i thdr a w on appe a l s upport e d by abr i e f pr e pa r e d pur s ua ntt o A nde r s v. C a l i f orni a , 386 U . S . 738, 87 S . C t . 1396, 18 L . E d. 2d 49 3 (19 67 ). O ur i nd ependentre vi ew of the ent i re re cord revea l s that co u n sel ’ s assessm en to f th e rel at i v e m eri to f th e ap p eal i s co rrect . B ecau se in d e p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls n o is s u e s o f a r g u ab le m e r it, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED a nd M a rt i ne z ’ s c onvi c t i on a nd se nt ence ar e A FFI R M ED .
Charles G. KINNEY, petitioner, v. Tani G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, et al.

No. 18-1096.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1632 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1632

 To provide that certain attribution rules be applied with respect to 
 the counting of certain prisoners in a decennial census of population.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 1999

    Mr. Green of Wisconsin (for himself and Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that certain attribution rules be applied with respect to 
 the counting of certain prisoners in a decennial census of population.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. APPLICABILITY.

    This Act applies in the case of an individual if--
            (1) on the decennial census date involved, such individual 
        is incarcerated (pursuant to having been convicted under the 
        laws of a State) in a prison located within a different State; 
        and
            (2) greater than half of the costs associated with such 
        individual's incarceration are, under the terms of an agreement 
        to which the States referred to in paragraph (1) are parties, 
        recoverable by the State in which the prison is located.

SEC. 2. RULES FOR COUNTING PRISONERS.

    (a) In General.--In tabulating the total population of the 
respective States in a decennial census of population, the Secretary of 
Commerce shall provide that any individual described in section 1 shall 
be counted as a resident of the State from which those amounts 
(relating to the costs of such individual's incarceration) are so 
recoverable.
    (b) Special Rules.--In the event that amounts are recoverable from 
2 or more States, this section shall be applied in accordance with such 
special rules as the Secretary of Commerce shall prescribe consistent 
with carrying out the purposes of this Act.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    As used in this Act--
            (1) the terms ``census of population'' and ``decennial 
        census date'' have the meanings given them under section 141 of 
        title 13, United States Code;
            (2) the term ``State'' includes the District of Columbia; 
        and
            (3) the term ``prison'' means a correctional or penal 
        facility.
                                 <all>
```
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHIQUITA BROOKS-LASURE, et al.,

Defendants. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 6:23-cv-161-JDK

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CLARIFY

The Court preliminarily enjoined Defendants from “implementing or 

enforcing” a recent Informational Bulletin addressing certain hold harmless 

arrangements. Docket No. 31. 

Defendants have since filed a “conditional motion to clarify” the scope of the 

preliminary injunction. Docket No. 34. In their motion, Defendants set out their 

understanding of (1) the geographic scope—that the injunction is “geographically 

limited to the State of Texas”—and (2) the substantive scope—that the injunction 

“prohibit[s] the federal government from taking any actions with respect to the State 

of Texas that depend on the legal interpretation articulated in the informational 

bulletin.” Id. at 1–4. Defendants request “clarification from the Court if [these] 

understanding[s] . . . [are] incorrect.” Id. at 2, 4.

Case 6:23-cv-00161-JDK Document 40 Filed 08/03/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 619
2

In their response, Plaintiffs do not appear to dispute either of Defendants’

interpretations. Docket No. 38 at 3–5. Accordingly, the Court finds that a 

clarification is unnecessary and DENIES the motion. 

Plaintiffs also express concern that Defendants are attempting to modify the 

injunction to “do precisely what the injunction says they may not do.” Id. at 6–7. 

Plaintiffs argue that, if Defendants want a modification, they must demonstrate that 

the facts or law have changed in a way that would justify the modification. Id. at 7 

(citing Canal Auth. of State of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 578 (5th Cir. 1974)). 

The Court agrees. To the extent Defendants are requesting a modification of the 

preliminary injunction, the request is DENIED. Defendants may seek a modification 

with a proper showing if the facts or law necessitate.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3rd August, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00161-JDK Document 40 Filed 08/03/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 620