alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

JOHN VANOUS,

Plaintiff,

v. 

DARIOUS KING, ET AL.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-42-RWS-JBB

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff John Vanous’s lawsuit against officials of the Texas 

Department Civil Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. The case wasreferred to United States

Magistrate Judge Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Magistrate Judge issued 

a Report recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed as barred by the three-strikes provision of 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Docket No. 11. No objections have been filed. 

Because no objections have been received, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review by the 

District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and, 

except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings 

and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville,

Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-

RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021).

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. 

Upon such review, the Court has determined the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate 

Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and 

Case 5:23-cv-00042-RWS-JBB Document 13 Filed 03/19/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 37
Page 2 of 2

contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 11) is ADOPTED as the 

opinion of the District Court. It is further

ORDERED that that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

as to the refiling of anotherin forma pauperislawsuitraising the same claims asthe present case, but

without prejudice as to the refiling of this lawsuit without seeking in forma pauperis status and 

upon payment of the full $405.00 filing fee. Should Plaintiff pay that fee in this case within 15 

days of the date of entry of dismissal, this case shall be reopened, and he will be allowed to proceed 

as though the full fee were paid from the outset. 

.

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 19th day of March, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00042-RWS-JBB Document 13 Filed 03/19/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 38
Josh A. WAIRI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18M43.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari with supplemental appendix under seal granted.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

PHILLIP RAY POWELL §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-95 

BRYAN DOBBS, ET AL. §

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Phillip Ray Powell, a prisoner confined at the United States Penitentiary in

Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

The action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Discussion

On March 29, 2023, Plaintiff was ordered to pay the $402.00 filing fee or submit an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. #3.) Plaintiff was given twenty days to complywith

the court order. As of this date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or requested leave to proceed in

forma pauperis.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action sua

sponte for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031

(5th Cir. 1998). “The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays

in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” 

Case 1:23-cv-00095-MJT-CLS Document 5 Filed 04/26/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 9
Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir.

1997).

By choosing not to comply with the court order, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case

diligently. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution.

Recommendation

This action should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Objections

Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and

file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the

magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an

aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal

conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R.

CIV. P. 72. 

2

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 26th day of April, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00095-MJT-CLS Document 5 Filed 04/26/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 10
Exhibit 10.17


 


ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT


 


THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
is made, executed and delivered as of the 5th day of November 2018, by and between Jacoby & Co. Inc., a Nevada corporation
(“Assignor”), Warehouse Goods LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”), and
Adam Schoenfeld (“Executive”).


 


W I T N E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS, Assignor is party to an
employment agreement dated October 28, 2015 with Executive (the “Employment Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, in accordance with Section
7(a) of the Employment Agreement, Assignor desires to assign all of its right, title and interest in and to the Employment Agreement
to Assignee; and


 


WHEREAS, the Executive wishes to
work for Assignee under the terms of the Employment Agreement.


 


WITNESSETH, THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION
of the mutual promises contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, Assignor hereby bargains, sells, assigns and transfers unto Assignee, its successors and assigns, all
of Assignor’s right, title and interest in, to and under the Employment Agreement.


 


TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto
Assignee, its successors and assigns from and after the date hereof for all the rest of the term of such Employment Agreement (and
any renewals, extensions and other options therein contained), subject to the covenants, conditions and provisions therein contained.


 


ASSIGNEE HEREBY assumes and agrees
to perform any and all liabilities and obligations under the Employment Agreement.


 


EXECUTIVE HEREBY consents to the
assignments of the Employment Agreement to Assignee and agrees to perform services for Assignee pursuant to the terms of the Employment
Agreement. From and after the date hereof, Executive shall look only to Assignee for performance under the Employment Agreement.


 


This Agreement shall inure to the benefit
of and be binding upon Assignor, Assignee and Executive and their respective successors and assigns.


 


This instrument is subject to the terms
and conditions of the Employment Agreement and shall be governed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware
without regard to conflicts of law principles.


 






    1


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and intending
to be legally bound hereby, Assignor, Assignee, and Executive have caused this Assignment and Assumption Agreement to be executed
and delivered by their duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above written.


 





	 	ASSIGNOR
	 	 	 	 
	 	JACOBY & CO. INC.
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	Aaron
                                         LoCascio



	 	 	Name:	Aaron LoCascio




	 	 	Title:	CEO
	 	 	 	 
	 	ASSIGNEE
	 	 	 	 
	 	WAREHOUSE GOODS LLC
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Aaron LoCascio
	 	 	Name:	Aaron
                                         LoCascio




	 	 	Title:	CEO
	 	 	 	 
	 	EXECUTIVE
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Adam Schoenfeld
	 	 	Name:	Adam
                                         Schoenfeld








 






    2
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 11747]

                    Pursuant to section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2781), and E.O. 13637, as amended, I hereby determine and certify to the Congress that the following countries are not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts: Iran, Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North Korea), Syria, Venezuela, and Cuba. This determination and certification shall be transmitted to the Congress and published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: May 11, 2022.

Antony J. Blinken,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2022-10829 Filed 5-19-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

VICTOR ANDREW APODACA, 

#2143720, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNKNOWN 1, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-156-JDK-JDL 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Victor Andrew Apodaca, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice 

inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings 

of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. 

Before the Court is Defendants Emmanuel Antwi, Toby Davis, Enuel Engoro, 

Sean Garren, Andrew Hudson, and John Legard’s motion for summary judgment 

arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit 

as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Docket No. 44. On February 26, 

2024, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the Court deny Defendants’ 

summary judgment motion. Docket No. 55. No objections to the Report have been 

filed. 

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and 

Case 6:23-cv-00156-JDK-JDL Document 60 Filed 03/20/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 532
2 

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court 

examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. 

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), 

superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 

file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

Here, Defendants did not object in the prescribed period. The Court 

therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of 

discretion and reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are 

contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), 

cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate 

Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of 

discretion and contrary to law”). 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 

the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary 

to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of 

the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 55) as the findings of this Court 

and DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of 

administrative exhaustion (Docket No. 44). 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20th March, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00156-JDK-JDL Document 60 Filed 03/20/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 533
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,018
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,483
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    138,238
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               152,255
<PP&E>                                          93,954
<DEPRECIATION>                                (14,954)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 241,130
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,267
<BONDS>                                         17,474
<COMMON>                                       106,319
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,008
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   241,130
<SALES>                                        560,062
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               560,062
<CGS>                                          436,553
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  436,553
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                93,127
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,301
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,688
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,569
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,119
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,119
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.50
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00771-CV

Kent B. HOFFMAN, et al.,

Appellants

v.

Andrew M. THOMSON, et al.,

Appellees

From the 343rd Judicial District Court, McMullen County, Texas

Trial Court No. M-17-0008-CV-C, Consolidated M-17-0034-CV-B

Honorable Janna K. Whatley, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the portion of the appeal by appellants 

Tianpeng Gu and Xiangrui Kong as Trustees of the Tianpeng Gu and Xiangrui Kong Living Trust, 

Tianpeng Gu, Individually, Xiangrui Kong, Individually, Yujie Pan, Dan He as Trustee of the Dan 

He Living Trust, LFF Management L.P., Yu Min Chen, Ya Miin Chen, Chi & Xiao Ltd., and J. 

Liu Property, LLC (collectively the “Kong Appellants”) is DISMISSED. Costs of the appeal are 

taxed against the party who incurred them. 

SIGNED February 26, 2020.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Andre K. CLARKE, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 18-5727.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM-10K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000917471
<NAME> INSO CORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,502
<SECURITIES>                                    44,555
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,588
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,394
<PP&E>                                           9,865
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 163,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,117
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           155
<OTHER-SE>                                     109,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   163,219
<SALES>                                         51,758
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,094
<CGS>                                            9,362
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,650
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                86,019
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (20,604)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,035)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,604)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,569)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.30)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1


                       RACI HOLDING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
         Statement Re: Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                              (Dollars in Millions)




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Year Ended December 31,
                                          --------------------------------------------------------
                                           1998          1997        1996        1995        1994
                                          ------        ------      ------      ------      ------

<S>                                       <C>           <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Earnings:
--------
     Net Income (Loss)                    $ 17.2        $ 5.5       $(13.8)     $ 11.5      $ 9.4
     Add:
         Income Taxes                       11.1          3.5         (7.0)        8.5         6.4
         Interest Expense (a)               19.2         23.6         25.1        21.5        20.6
         Portion of Rents
             Representative of
             Interest Factor                 0.1          0.3          0.3         0.3         0.3
                                          ------       ------       ------      ------      ------
                                          $ 47.6       $ 32.9       $  4.6      $ 41.8      $ 36.7
                                          ======       ======       ======      ======      ======

Fixed Charges:
-------------
         Interest Expense (a)             $ 19.2       $ 23.6       $ 25.1      $ 21.5      $ 20.6
         Capitalized Interest                  -          0.2          0.2           -           -
         Portion of Rents
             Representative of
             Interest Factor                 0.1          0.3          0.3         0.3         0.3
                                          ------       ------       ------      ------      ------
                                          $ 19.3       $ 24.1       $ 25.6      $ 21.8      $ 20.9
                                          ======       ======       ======      ======      ======

             Ratio of Earnings to
             Fixed Charges                   2.5 x        1.4 x        0.2 x       1.9 x       1.8 x
</TABLE>


(a)      Includes amortization of discount on indebtedness and excludes
         capitalized interest.
Robert G. HILLSMAN, petitioner, v. Mark J. ESCOTO.

No. 17-1611.

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.
`[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31627-31631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11130]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have 
been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked 
Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more 
applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in 
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and 
U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions 
with them.

DATES: See Supplementary Information section for applicable date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.: 
202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-
2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant 
Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Assistant 
Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions 
programs are available on OFAC's website (www.treasury.gov/ofac).

Notice of OFAC Action(s)

    On May 19, 2022, OFAC determined that the property and interests in 
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are 
blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

[[Page 31628]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24MY22.002


[[Page 31629]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24MY22.003


[[Page 31630]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24MY22.004


[[Page 31631]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24MY22.005


    Dated: May 19, 2022.
Andrea M. Gacki,
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the 
Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2022-11130 Filed 5-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C`