alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

No. 6:23-cv-00194

Paul La’Mark Little,

Petitioner,

v.

Director, TDCJ-CID,

Respondent.

ORDER

Petitioner Paul Little, an inmate of the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice proceeding pro se, filed this petition for the writ of 

habeas corpus challenging the legality of prison disciplinary action 

taken against him. Doc. 1. The petition has been referred to United 

States Magistrate Judge John D. Love. 

Petitioner challenged disciplinary case nos. 20210210124 and 

20220039208, complaining that he was denied due process and 

confined in restrictive housing for 22 months. Doc. 1-1 at 2. The 

magistrate judge determined that petitioner had previously sought 

habeas corpus relief on these same two disciplinary convictions in 

the Northern District of Texas in March of 2022, and that petition 

was dismissed with prejudice. Doc. 9 at 2; Little v. Director, 

TDCJ-CID, No. 1:22-cv-22 (N.D. Tex., dismissed November 9, 

2023). The magistrate judge therefore recommended that the present petition be dismissed for want of jurisdiction until such time 

as petitioner demonstrates that he has received permission from 

the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive petition. 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3); Crone v. Cockrell, 324 F.3d 833, 836 (5th Cir. 

2003). 

Petitioner filed objections to the report asserting that he was 

denied equal protection and subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Doc. 11. The court reviews the objected-to portions of a 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Petitioner’s objections 

Case 6:23-cv-00194-JCB-JDL Document 13 Filed 05/17/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 47
- 2 -

do not mention, much less controvert, the magistrate judge’s conclusion that his petition is successive. Petitioner’s objections are 

without merit. 

Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and petitioner’s objections de novo, the court overrules petitioner’s objections and accepts the findings and recommendations of the 

magistrate judge’s report. The court orders that the petition for 

the writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice for want 

of jurisdiction. A certificate of appealability is denied. 

So ordered by the court on May 17, 2024.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00194-JCB-JDL Document 13 Filed 05/17/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 48
W.S., petitioner, v. S.T., et ux.

No. 18-129.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 annual report of TALX Corporation (the"Company") on Form
10-K for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, L. Keith Graves, Chief
Financial Officer 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:

         (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 the Company.



                                                By: /s/ L. Keith Graves
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                L. Keith Graves
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                TALX Corporation
                                                May 22, 2003
Terry E. CALLINS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6281.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice GINSBURG joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in *Brown v. United States,* 586 U.S. ----, --- S.Ct. ----, ---L.Ed.2d ----, 2018 WL 6272161 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 03/08/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      608,073
COMMITMENTS
  47,446   27,940  142,694  396,311  416,854  586,452  587,488   21,621   20,585

CHANGES FROM 03/01/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -13,006)
  -3,661    2,501    2,701   -4,910  -14,771   -5,870   -9,569   -7,136   -3,437

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     7.8      4.6     23.5     65.2     68.6     96.4     96.6      3.6      3.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      134)
      37       23       51       63       67      124      121
```

----

Updated March 11, 2011
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 03/20/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      391,954
COMMITMENTS
  47,038   40,024   87,730  236,074  246,728  370,842  374,482   21,112   17,472

CHANGES FROM 03/13/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -12,129)
   1,349    3,624    1,176  -14,738  -16,453  -12,213  -11,653       84     -476

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    12.0     10.2     22.4     60.2     62.9     94.6     95.5      5.4      4.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      126)
      23       31       39       62       58      113      105
```

----

Updated March 23, 2012
**Exhibit 10.18****SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION**     The following is a summary of the compensation provided by Olympic Steel, Inc. to non-employeedirectors for service as a director.     Each Director who was not an employee of the Company received a $45,000 annual retainer,payable in quarterly installments and reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses incurred inconnection with attending board meetings. The Audit Committee Chairman received an additional$10,000 and the Chairmen of the Compensation and NominatingCommittees each received an additional$5,000. Upon appointment to the Board, each outside director is entitled to a stock option grantof 10,000 shares. Directors who are also employees of the Company receive no additionalremuneration for serving as Directors.
Markus DAVIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6484.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Jon Duke DePRIEST, petitioner, v. Pam BONDI, Attorney General of Florida, et al.

No. 18-5778.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
NO. 01-15-00411-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 

Ex parte Julio J. Lebron 

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 15 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2020596 

APPELLANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

Julio J. Lebron, through Jonathan Landers, files this motion to dismiss his 

appeal. As the State of Texas notes in its reply briefing filed on this date the 

criminal case against Julio J. Lebron was dismissed on May 28, 2015, the day 

before his trial was to begin. Because the criminal case has been dismissed and 

Julio J. Lebron has been released from custody, he requests that his appeal be 

dismissed. 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure article 42.2 provides: 

(a) At any time before the appellate court's decision, the appellate court may 

dismiss the appeal upon the appellant's motion. The appellant and his or her 

attorney must sign the written motion to dismiss and file it in duplicate with 

the appellate clerk, who must immediately send the duplicate copy to the trial 

court clerk. 

ACCEPTED

01-15-00411-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

6/1/2015 4:25:39 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/1/2015 4:25:39 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Appellant Lebron certifies that immediately below is my original signature 

affixed by my own hand: 

Date: ' /; l~ots 

Respectfully submitted, 

e. 

g,Ml,a;tk/7 a&u~ 

Jonathan D. Landers 

State Bar No. 24070101 

2817 W. TC Jester Blvd., Suite M 

Houston, Texas 77018 

713-301-3153 (Phone) 

713-685-5020 (FAX) 

Jlanders. law@gmai I .com 

LA WYER FOR APPELLANT 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that a copy of this motion to dismiss has been delivered to the Harris 

County District Attorney's Office on 06/01/2015 through thee-filing system. 

Jonathan Landers 
NO. 01-15-00411-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 

Ex parte Julio J. Lebron 

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 15 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2020596 

ORDER 

Upon considering APPELLANT'S MOTION TO DISMISSIt is ordered GRANTED. 

Signed this __ day of ______ , 2015. 

JUDGE PRESIDING
---

---

# INDEPENDENT
AUDITORS REPORT

To the Board of Directors
Silicom Connectivity Solutions, Inc.
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Silicom, Ltd.)
Mahwah, New Jersey

We have audited the accompanying
balance sheets of Silicom Connectivity Solutions, Inc. (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
Silicom, Ltd.) as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related statements of operations,
accumulated deficit and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2002. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements
based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about
whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the
financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our
opinion.

In our opinion, the financial
statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of Silicom Connectivity Solutions, Inc. (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Silicom,
Ltd.) as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the results of its operations and its cash
flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2002 in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

The Companys parent company has
expressed both its ability and its intent to continue providing financial support to
assure that Silicom Connectivity Solutions, Inc. will continue in operation.

/s/ McGladrey &
Pullen LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
January 6, 2003



---

---
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 03/27/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      304,339
COMMITMENTS
  78,891  108,518   30,384  172,225  138,420  281,500  277,322   22,839   27,017

CHANGES FROM 03/20/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -59,544)
 -21,909   -6,825   -9,284  -20,035  -37,267  -51,228  -53,376   -8,316   -6,168

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    25.9     35.7     10.0     56.6     45.5     92.5     91.1      7.5      8.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      119)
      26       51       43       27       33       83      104
```

----

Updated March 30, 2012
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7296

DARIAN ANTONIO COLEMAN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CPT ROBERT MILLER, f/k/a Lt Robert Miller, each defendant is being sued in 

their individual capacities at all times herein; OFC BRADLEY MILLS, each 

defendant is being sued in their individual capacities at all times herein; MAJOR 

FORD, f/k/a Cpt Ford, each defendant is being sued in their individual capacities 

at all times herein; RESIGNED MAJOR DANIEL DURBOSE, each defendant is 

being sued in their individual capacities at all times herein; WARDEN CECILA 

REYNOLDS, each defendant is being sued in their individual capacities at all 

times herein,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge. (8:14-cv-04747-DCN)

Submitted: February 22, 2018 Decided: February 27, 2018

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Darian Antonio Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Christy L. Scott, SCOTT & PAYNE LAW 

FIRM, Walterboro, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Darian Antonio Coleman appeals the district court’s orders: (1) adopting the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting summary judgment in favor of 

Defendants; (2) denying Coleman’s belatedly-filed Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion; and 

(3) denying Coleman’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Parties 

are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note 

an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period 

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). 

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” 

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

Although Coleman filed a motion for an extension of time to file his notice of 

appeal, the district court correctly denied that motion as untimely. We therefore affirm 

that order. The district court’s order granting summary judgment was entered on August 

3, 2016, and its order denying Coleman’s untimely Rule 59(e) motion was entered on 

December 19, 2016. Coleman did not file his notice of appeal until March 25, 2017, at 

the earliest. Because Coleman failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an 

extension or reopening of the appeal period, we lack jurisdiction to consider the propriety 

of either the August 3 or December 19 orders. 

Accordingly, we deny Coleman’s motion to clarify the record, affirm the district 

court’s order denying an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, and dismiss the 

remainder of Coleman’s appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 
4

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

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART,

DISMISSED IN PART
Vincent McCRUDDEN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 18-9212.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
DETROIT INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE CO., et al., v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al.

No. 18-161 (R46-02/OT 2018).

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

The petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46.1 of the Rules of this Court.
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Stabilization of Iraq

                    On May 22, 2003, by Executive Order 13303, the President declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701*et seq.*) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by obstacles to the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq.                

The obstacles to the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303, as modified in scope and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13290 of March 20, 2003, Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004, Executive Order 13438 of July 17, 2007, and Executive Order 13668 of May 27, 2014, must continue in effect beyond May 22, 2022. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to the stabilization of Iraq declared in Executive Order 13303.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     *Federal Register*                     and transmitted to the Congress.                

[FR Doc. 2022-10326

Billing code 3395-F2-P
Gregory GARMONG, petitioner, v. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, et al.

No. 18-152.

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.
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


March 26, 2019


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 422 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trusts (the “Trusts”) included in
the Registration Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trusts on the date
hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on March 25, 2019, in accordance
with the valuation method set forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreements. We consent to
the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the Registration
Statement (No. 333-229195) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the
Units of the Trusts and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO
	 	Gerardo Cipriano
	 	Vice President
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 20, 2020

NO. 03-20-00036-CV

Luther W. Cobb, Sr, Appellant

v.

Joseph Campbell, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, KELLY, AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. 

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent 

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
| Subsidiary                                               |        | Jurisdiction                of Organization |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|                                                     |   |                                        |
| JRW                Associates, L.P.                      |        | California                                  |
|                                                     |   |                                        |
| RW                Central Valley, Inc.                   |        | California                                  |
|                                                     |   |                                        |
| Byron                Power Partners, L.P.                |        | California                                  |
|                                                     |   |                                        |
| RW                Byron, Inc.                            |        | California                                  |
|                                                     |   |                                        |
| Ridgewood                Providence Power Partners, L.P. |        | Delaware                                    |
|                                                     |   |                                        |

----
James L. KISOR, petitioner, v. Robert WILKIE, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

No. 18-15.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.