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

____________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Patent Armory Inc.

2:23-cv-199

Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

c/o CT Corporation System

1999 Bryan St., Ste 900, Dallas, TX 75201

Rabicoff Law LLC

600 Mamaroneck Ave STE 400, Harrison, NY 10528

7736694590

5/5/23

Case 2:23-cv-00199-JRG Document 5 Filed 05/05/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 121
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) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u 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

u 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

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u 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:

0.00

Case 2:23-cv-00199-JRG Document 5 Filed 05/05/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 122
fs1a1ex10ix_caldera.htm


Exhibit 10.9


 







  





1











  






 







  





2











  






 







  





3











  






 







  





4











  






 







  





5











  






 







  





6











  






 







  





7











  






 







  





8











  






 







  





9











  






 







  





10











  






 







  





11











  






 







  





12











  






 







  





13











  






 







  





14











  






 







  





15











  






 







  





16











  






 







  





17











  






 







  





18











  






 







  





19











  






 







  





20











  






 




21
Angel ROSARIO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6397.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Exhibit 15.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


The Board of Directors
 Silicom Ltd.:
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in registration statement no. 333-143565 on Form F-3 and registration statement no. 333-149144 on Form S-8 of Silicom Ltd. of our report dated March 17, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Silicom Ltd. and its subsidiary as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2009, which reports appear in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 20-F of Silicom Ltd.
  Somekh Chaikin
 Certified Public Accountants (Israel)
 Member Firm of KPMG International
  Tel Aviv, Israel
 March 17, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 30480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10943]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation 
at the conclusion of the open meeting on May 26, 2022.

PLACE: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC and virtual (this meeting 
will be a hybrid meeting).

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 
30109.
    Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to 
have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed 
Commission action.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
* * * * *

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

(Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b)

Vicktoria J. Allen,
Acting Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022-10943 Filed 5-17-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM VARI-L'S
AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PREPARED AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND FOR THE
TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD THEN ENDED, INCLUDED WITH ITS 10-KSB FILING WITH THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,225
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,386
<ALLOWANCES>                                         4
<INVENTORY>                                      7,741
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,341
<PP&E>                                          15,759
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,654
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,115
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,921
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            40
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,956
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,115
<SALES>                                         12,211
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,357
<CGS>                                            6,227
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,227
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,630
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 468
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,032
<INCOME-TAX>                                       854
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,178
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,178
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30


</TABLE>
Daniel SEXTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5391.

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.
ALMIGHTY SUPREME BORN ALLAH v. Lynn MILLING, et al.

No. 17-8654 (R46-035/OT 2017).

Supreme Court of the United States

Sept. 4, 2018.

The petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46 of the Rules of this Court.
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 589



## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I No. CV-13-527 SALINE COUNTY JUDGE and AAC RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES APPELLANTS V.
THOMAS CROUCH APPELLEE Opinion Delivered October 23, 2013 APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. G110162]
AFFIRMED
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge The Saline County Judge and AAC Risk Management Services appeal the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s order finding that Thomas Crouch suffered a compensable injury and was entitled to additional medical treatment. Specifically, the Commission ruled that Crouch, who had previously undergone back surgery, sustained a compensable injury, while working for the Sardis Volunteer Fire Department, after he and other firefighters lifted a small wall to put out a fire. At one point during his treatment for the compensable injury, Crouch reported feeling a “pull” in his back after bending over to pick up his son. The Commission determined that the physical therapist’s notes indicating “decrease lumbar lordosis” constituted the necessary objective medical findings for a compensable injury. The Commission also found that Crouch’s bending over to pick up his son was not unreasonable conduct under the circumstances. Appellants argue that the Commission’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence given the lack of objectiveCite as 2013 Ark. App. 589

findings and the presence of an independent intervening injury. The Commission exercised its duty to make determinations of credibility, weigh the evidence, and resolve any conflicting medical testimony and other evidence. Ark. Methodist Med. Ctr. v. Blansett , 2013 Ark. App. 480. Because the Commission’s opinion adequately explains its decision, and that decision is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm by memorandum opinion. In re Memorandum Opinions , 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985). Affirmed. G RUBERand W HITEAKER , JJ., agree. Michael E. Ryburn , for appellants. The McNeely Law Firm, PLLC , by: Steven R. McNeely , for appellee.

2
Judith M. BROWN-WILLIAMS, et vir, petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al.

No. 18-424.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE, Applicant v. ARGUS LEADER MEDIA, d/b/a Argus Leader.

No. 18A146.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 9, 2018.

**ORDER**

UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicant,

IT IS ORDERED that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, case No. 17-1346, is hereby recalled and stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Thursday, August 16, 2018, by 4 p.m. The reply, if *5any, is to be filed by 4 p.m., Tuesday, August 21, 2018.

*/s/ Neil M. Gorsuch*

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Richard GEBHARDT, petitioner, v. Kirstjen M. NIELSEN, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

No. 18-158.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Bruce L. SMALL, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 18-6289.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

                         
                       
       

<S>                                           <C>    

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-mos
<CASH>                                         656,511
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,075,081
<PP&E>                                         928,622
<DEPRECIATION>                                 739,224
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,317,942
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          721,573
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       11,711
<OTHER-SE>                                     13,554,323
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,317,942
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               820,722
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (801,589)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.05)
        


</TABLE>
In Re Wilma PENNINGTON-THURMAN, petitioner.

No. 18-5400.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
**Exhibit 24****POWERS OF ATTORNEY****OLYMPIC STEEL, INC.**     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that OLYMPIC STEEL, INC., an Ohio corporation, and each personwhose name is signed below hereby constitute and appoint Michael D. Siegal and Richard T. Marabitotheir attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for and onbehalf of Olympic Steel, Inc. and the undersigned Directors and officers of Olympic Steel, Inc.,and each of such Directors and officers, to sign Olympic Steel, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2005, any or all amendments thereto, and to file the same, withexhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, granting such attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority to do and performeach and every act and thing requisite and necessary in connection with such matters and herebyratifying and confirming all that such attorneys-in-fact and agents or their substitute orsubstitutes may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.     This Power of Attorney of Olympic Steel, Inc., and the Directors and officers of OlympicSteel, Inc. may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an originalwith respect to the person executing it.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Power of Attorney has been signed at Cleveland, Ohio this 14thday of March, 2006.      OLYMPIC STEEL, INC.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; F99/K00 Review October 2022 Council.                    

*Date:*                         June 16, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Anita H. Undale, Ph.D., MD, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-7428,                         *anita.undale@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 17, 2022.

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-10951 Filed 5-20-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

March 22, 2016 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ROGER DALE STEWART

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hawkins County

No. 13CR81 John F. Dugger, Jr., Judge

No. M2015-00820-CCA-R3-CD – Filed October 18, 2016

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with most of the conclusions set forth in the majority opinion. I write 

separately, however, to respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the trial 

court’s merger of the defendant’s reckless endangerment convictions does not constitute 

plain error. 

The majority addresses this issue in a footnote of the opinion and correctly 

concludes that the trial court erred by merging the defendant’s reckless endangerment 

convictions because the State elected to prosecute the defendant in Counts 2 and 3 for 

criminal acts committed against individually named victims. See State v. Cross, 362 

S.W.3d 512, 519 n.5 (Tenn. 2012). Moreover, such dual convictions do not violate 

double jeopardy. See State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 520, 556-57 (Tenn. 2012). However, 

the majority also concludes, without any explanation, that the trial court’s error does not 

rise to the level of plain error because “our consideration of such is not necessary to do 

substantial justice” under Adkisson. This is where the majority and I disagree. This 

court has repeatedly held that a trial court’s improper merger of offenses constitutes plain 

error. See State v. Jonathan Downey, No. M2013-01099-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 

820274, at *10 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Feb. 28, 2014), perm. to appeal denied, 

(Tenn. June 25, 2014), State v. David Eugene Breezee, No. W2011-01231-CCA-R3-CD, 

2012 WL 6728345, at *8 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Dec. 28, 2012), perm. to appeal 

denied, (Tenn. May 14, 2013); State v. David E. Offutt, No. M2007-02728-CCA-R3-CD, 

2009 WL 2567870, at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Aug. 20, 2009), perm. to appeal 

denied, (Tenn. Mar. 1, 2010). Moreover, in Downey, a panel of this court specifically 

concluded that consideration of such error was necessary to do substantial justice because 

the erroneous merger deprived the State of the benefit of the jury’s verdict for the merged 

offense. No. M2013-01099-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 820274, at *10.
- 2 -

In sum, I believe the trial court committed plain error by merging the defendant’s 

reckless endangerment convictions. Therefore, I would remand this case in order for the 

court to reinstate the conviction of reckless endangerment in Count 3 and to resentence 

the defendant.

_________________________________ 

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE
REPUBLIC OF SUDAN, petitioner, v. Rick HARRISON, et al.

No. 16-1094.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
Billy Gene HOWARD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8306.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Exhibit
23





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED


PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (File No. 333-21293) and on Form S-8 (File No. 333-141471) of Agree Realty
Corporation of our reports dated March 12, 2010, relating to the consolidated
financial statements, the financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, which appear on page F-2 of this
annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.





/s/
      BAKER TILLY VIRCHOW, KRAUSE, LLP





Chicago,
IL


March 12,
2010
Tyler G. EPPES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6531.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 30, 2016

p1121 

# Order

Clerk November 30, 2016

152891(14)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 152891

COA: 328596

Saginaw CC: 11

- 035855

- FC

BRYANT EUGENE BENTLEY, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 6,

2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, b ecause it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.