alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IN RE MOTOROLA MOBI LITY LLC

______________________

2013

- 1133

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Reexamination No. 90/010,890.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

S COTT A. M C K EOWN , Oblon, Spivak , McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P., of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellant. With him on the brief w as A LEXANDER B.

E NGLEHART

.

M ICHAEL S. F ORMAN

, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of
Alex andria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on
the brief were N ATHAN K. K ELLEY , Deputy Solicitor, and
C OKE M ORGAN S TEWART , Associate Solicitor.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :P ER C URIAM (O’M ALLEY

, C LEVENGER

, and T ARANTO

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

September 16, 2013 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Date Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk
Gonzalo HOLGUIN-HERNANDEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7739.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 28, 2019.

K. Winn Allen, Esquire, of Washington, D.C., is invited to brief and argue this case, as *amicus curiae,* in support of the judgment below.
Jeremy J. BOHLMAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5470.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Brian Arthur WEESE, petitioner, v. MARYLAND.

No. 18-316.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 12/11/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       65,465
COMMITMENTS
  10,277    3,941      423   50,052   58,344   60,752   62,708    4,713    2,757

CHANGES FROM 12/04/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        618)
     116      778      423       44      -18      583    1,183       35     -565

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    15.7      6.0      0.6     76.5     89.1     92.8     95.8      7.2      4.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       72)
       9        7        2       36       32       47       39
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 12/11/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:      150,843
COMMITMENTS
  23,367   20,304    6,817  105,058  119,131  135,242  146,252   15,601    4,591

CHANGES FROM 12/04/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     18,494)
   1,310    2,144    3,075   10,651   12,844   15,036   18,063    3,458      431

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    15.5     13.5      4.5     69.6     79.0     89.7     97.0     10.3      3.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      126)
      35       14        6       57       40       96       56
```

----

Updated December 14, 2012
David D. EWING, petitioner, v. Ronda PASH, Warden.

No. 18-9228.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 07/31/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      160,052
COMMITMENTS
  53,089   11,554   12,301   71,637  107,711  137,027  131,566   23,025   28,486

CHANGES FROM 07/24/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -1,451)
     798    1,066      393   -1,841   -2,693     -650   -1,234     -801     -217

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    33.2      7.2      7.7     44.8     67.3     85.6     82.2     14.4     17.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      179)
      66       18       35       56       74      131      122
```

----

Updated August 3, 2012
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**AFFINITY GROUP, INC.**

 

**STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

I, Michael A. Schneider, President and Chief Executive Officer ofAffinity Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), herebycertify as follows:

 

1.                                       This statement isprovided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 in connection with the Company’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31,2010 (the “Periodic Report”);

 

2.                                       The PeriodicReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

3.                                       The informationcontained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of dates andfor the periods indicated therein.

 

 
| Date: May 13, 2010 |                                  |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                    |                                  |
|                    | /s/ Michael A. Schneider              |
|                    | Michael A. Schneider                  |
|                    | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or such other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thewritten statement as required by Section 906, has been provided toAffinity Group, Inc. and will be retained by Affinity Group, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50636 Summary Calendar

DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

APACHE CORPORATION,

Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:19

- CV

- 352

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *

The district court dismissed this patent

- infringement lawsuit without
prejudice after Dr. L akshmi Arunachalam disobeyed its orders and failed to
pay a filing fee . On appeal, Dr. Arunachalam accuses the district court of
misfeasance and violating the Constitution. We find no merit in any of the

twenty

- three issues of law identified.

AFFIRMED

. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 47. 6

.

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 7, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50636 Document: 00515148234 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/07/2019
Anthony WRIGHT, Sr., petitioner, v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al.

No. 17-8290.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 6, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Gregory D. KILPATRICK, petitioner, v. Sahar KAMKAR.

No. 18M48.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO. 5:23-CR-6

§

CHARLES A. HILL §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The above-styled matter was referred to the Honorable J. Boone Baxter, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for administration of a guilty plea under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. Judge Baxter conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed by Federal Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 11 and issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 38). Judge 

Baxter recommended that the Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea and conditionally approve the 

plea agreement. He further recommended that the Court finally adjudge Defendant as guilty of 

Count 1 of the Indictment. Count 1 of the Indictment charges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1), 

felon in possession of firearms. The Court is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation 

should be accepted. It is accordingly ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 38) is ADOPTED. It is further

ORDERED that the Defendant’s guilty plea is accepted and approved by the Court. 

Further, the plea agreement is approved by the Court, conditioned upon a review of the presentence 

report. It is finally 

ORDERED that, pursuant to the Defendant’s amended plea agreement, the Court finds the 

Defendant GUILTY of Count 1 of the Indictment in the above-numbered cause and enters a

Case 5:23-cr-00006-RWS-JBB Document 39 Filed 12/14/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 140
2

JUDGMENT OF GUILTY against the Defendant as to Count 1 of the Indictment.

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SIGNED this 14th day of December, 2023.

Case 5:23-cr-00006-RWS-JBB Document 39 Filed 12/14/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 141
Robert Brian WINSTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8525.

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.
Eugene COOPER, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 18-9293.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District denied.
MIDWEST MACHINING, INC., petitioner, v. Jena McCLELLAN.

No. 18-928.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
#### N. P. Walls, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division A.

Opinion filed March 19, 1929.

Price, *Price, Kelvoe & Eassewitz,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred II. Davis,*Attorney General and *Roy Campbell,*Assistant for the State.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff in Error, N. P. Walls, was tried and convicted in the Criminal Court of Records of Dade County on an information charging him with having obtained a certain check of the value of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) by false pretenses. A motion to quash the information, a motion in arrest of judgment and a motion for new trial were all reasonably made and denied. Walls was sentenced to the State penitentiary at hard labor for a period of three years and writ of error was taken to the judgment.

We think the motion to quash the information should have been granted. The false pretense charged against Walls consisted in an alleged representation by him to the effect that “Búngalo Lot 15, Block 41, Ocean Beach Addition No. 3, according to the plat thereof recorded in plat *383book No. 2 at page No. 81 of the public records of Dade County, Florida,” was incumbered by only one mortgage for the sum of Six Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-seven Dollars ($6,667.00) when in fact said lot was incumbered by another and different mortgage in the sum of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) securing three notes each in the sum of Eight Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-three Dollars ($8,333.00).

For this reason the judgment below must be and is hereby reversed.

Reversed.

Terrell, C. J., and Brown, J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Strum, J., absent on account of illness.

Buford, J.

I think the information is further fatally defective because it affirmatively shows that the. pretense alleged to have been relied upon was contradicted by the public records in the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court of Dade County, of which records the persons alleged to have been deceived had constructive notice and the contents of which they were in law advised.
```

```

----

Updated May 25, 2012
MORGENTHAU VENTURE PARTNERS, LLC, et al., petitioners, v. Robert A. KIMMEL.

No. 18-1156.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District denied.
Order entered June 2, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00102-CV

ESTATE OF FREDERIC B. ASCHE, JR., DECEASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-11-3533-2

ORDER

We GRANT the May 29, 2015 motion of Joie Rivera, Official Court Reporter for 

Probate Court No. 2, for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. The reporter’s record 

shall be filed by JULY 1, 2015.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000910632
<NAME>                        ICON Cash Flow Partners L.P. Six

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                            526,724
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  12,457,679
<ALLOWANCES>                                      274,187
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS> *                                      0
<PP&E>                                         19,100,646
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,123,504
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 41,502,622
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES> **                                0
<BONDS>                                        21,540,309
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                     17,559,599
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   41,502,622
<SALES>                                         1,681,557
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,688,470
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  522,943
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                460,253
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      705,274
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        1.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        1.84
<FN>
*    The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.

**   The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.
</FN>

        


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION, et al., petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, et al.

No. 17-504.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied. Justice THOMAS, Justice ALITO, and Justice GORSUCH would grant the petition, vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and remand to that court with instructions to dismiss the cases as moot. See *United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,*340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).

THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Justice KAVANAUGH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
John Elwood BUCKNER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9411.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

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

Justice SOTOMAYOR, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent from the denial of certiorari for the reasons set out in *Brown v. United States* , 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 14, --- L.E.2d ---- (2018) ( Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
Steven NEWBERG, petitioner, v. Jack PALMER, et al.

No. 17-9367.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1936

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prevent overpayment

for hospital discharges to post-acute care services by eliminating the

limitation on the number of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) subject

to the special transfer policy.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 25, 1999

Mr. STARK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce,

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the

committee concerned

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prevent

overpayment for hospital discharges to post-acute care

services by eliminating the limitation on the number of

diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) subject to the special

transfer policy.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1936 IH

1 SECTION 1. PREVENTION OF OVERPAYMENT FOR HOS2 PITAL DISCHARGES TO POST-ACUTE CARE

3 SERVICES BY ELIMINATING THE LIMITATION

4 ON THE NUMBER OF DIAGNOSIS-RELATED

5 GROUPS (DRGS) SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL

6 TRANSFER POLICY.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1886(d)(5)(J) of the So8 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(J)) is

9 amended—

10 (1) in clause (i), in the matter before subclause

11 (I)—

12 (A) by striking ‘‘, which is classified within

13 a diagnosis-related group described in clause

14 (iii), and’’, and

15 (B) by inserting ‘‘and adjusting for dif16 ferences in length of stay among regions and

17 States to the extent the Secretary determines

18 such adjustment to be feasible and appropriate’’

19 after ‘‘(as defined by the Secretary’’;

20 (2) in clause (ii)—

21 (A) in the matter before subclause (I), by

22 striking ‘‘classified with a diagnosis-related

23 group (described in clause (iii))’’, and

24 (B) in subclause (IV), by striking ‘‘clause

25 (iv)(I)’’ and inserting ‘‘clause (iii)’’;

26 (3) by striking clause (iii); and
3

•HR 1936 IH

1 (4) in clause (iv)—

2 (A) by striking the dash after ‘‘description

3 of’’ and all that follows up to ‘‘post-discharge’’,

4 (B) by striking ‘‘; and’’ and all that follows

5 and inserting a period, and

6 (C) by redesignating such clause as clause

7 (iii).

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

9 subsection (a) apply to discharges occurring on or after

10 October 1, 2000.

Æ
Keenan G. WILKINS, aka Nerrah Brown, petitioner, v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, et al.

No. 18-5571.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,396,641
<SECURITIES>                                 7,277,395
<RECEIVABLES>                                  644,569
<ALLOWANCES>                                   934,690
<INVENTORY>                                    104,160
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,357,455
<PP&E>                                         874,911
<DEPRECIATION>                                 383,948
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,439,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          775,646
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       145,513
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,482,955
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,439,765
<SALES>                                      3,462,072
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               760,414
<CGS>                                        2,842,833
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,044,533
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,662,302)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.33)


</TABLE>