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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

REYES REYES, JR. §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv106

UVIEOGHENE UGHWANOGHO §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Reyes Reyes, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled lawsuit. This matter was

referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order

for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge

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

 Procedural Background

On July 25, 2023, the court entered an order directing plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or

submit a properly certified application to proceed in forma pauperis showing deposits into his

inmate trust account during the preceding six month period. Plaintiff was given 20 days to comply

with the court’s order. Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the order on August 1, 2023. The time for

complying with the order has expired. However, plaintiff has not complied with the court’s order

or otherwise contacted the court. 

Discussion

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

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

1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court's inherent power to

control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v.

Graystone Insurance Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co.,

370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962)).

By failing to comply with the order described above, plaintiff has failed to diligently

prosecute this lawsuit. As a result, this case should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Case 1:23-cv-00106-MAC-ZJH Document 4 Filed 08/30/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 16
Recommendation

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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Objections

Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within 14 days after

being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72(b).

A party’s failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district

judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th

Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual

findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass’n,

79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

2

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 30th day of August, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00106-MAC-ZJH Document 4 Filed 08/30/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 17
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF NOVEMBER 1,
1997 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
NOVEMBER 1, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-01-1997
<CASH>                                          20,920
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  250,835
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    264,813
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               555,759
<PP&E>                                         199,315
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 801,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          227,212
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                     357,996
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   801,568
<SALES>                                        783,639
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               783,639
<CGS>                                          502,490
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  502,490
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               251,489
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,247
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,998
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,335
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,663
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,663
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 19 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 19

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 regarding the treatment of 
               golf caddies for employment tax purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1999

Mr. Burton of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 regarding the treatment of 
               golf caddies for employment tax purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Caddie Relief Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF GOLF CADDIES.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 3508 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to treatment of real estate agents and 
direct sellers) is amended by striking ``qualified real estate agent or 
as a direct seller'' and inserting ``qualified real estate agent, 
direct seller, or golf caddie''.
    (b) Definition.--Subsection (b) of section 3508 of such Code is 
amended by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and by 
inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) Golf caddie.--The term `golf caddie' means an 
        individual who performs the service of carrying golf clubs for, 
        or otherwise assisting, a non-professional golfer and, with 
        respect to whom, substantially all the remuneration (whether or 
        not paid in cash) for the performance of such service is--
                    ``(A) directly related to performing such services 
                rather than to the number of hours worked, and
                    ``(B) paid to such individual directly by the 
                golfer or by a third party as an agent of the golfer 
                where the third party incurs no obligation itself to 
                pay such remuneration.''.
    (c) Clerical Amendments.--
            (1) The heading of section 3508 of such Code is amended to 
        read as follows:

``SEC. 3508. TREATMENT OF REAL ESTATE AGENTS, DIRECT SELLERS, AND GOLF 
              CADDIES.''.

            (2) The item relating to section 3508 in the table of 
        sections for chapter 25 of such Code is amended to read as 
        follows:

                              ``Sec. 3508. Treatment of real estate 
                                        agents, direct sellers, and 
                                        golf caddies.''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to remuneration paid for services performed in taxable years 
ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

RICKY WAYNE BECKETT §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-180

ITEX GROUP, LLC §

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Ricky Wayne Beckett, a prisoner confined at the LeBlanc Unit of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institution Division, proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Itex Group, LLC.

The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate

Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court.

On April 17, 2024, the magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action. To date, the parties

have not filed objections to the report and recommendation.

The Court received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available

evidence. After careful review, the Court finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of

the United States Magistrate Judge are correct. 

Case 1:23-cv-00180-MJT-ZJH Document 33 Filed 08/06/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 175
ORDER

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct,

and the report of the magistrate judge [Dkt. 24] is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in

accordance with this memorandum order.

2

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 6th day of August, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00180-MJT-ZJH Document 33 Filed 08/06/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 176
Timothy B. FREDRICKSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES; and Timothy B. Fredrickson, petitioner, v. United States.

No. 18-9292.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Charles HARPER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6370.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Jesse COOLEY, Jr., petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al.

No. 18-6288.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,724,207
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  108,088
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,880,558
<PP&E>                                         207,086
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,141,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,261,250
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       148,352
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,218,060)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,141,542
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                95,092
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               979,466
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             230,563
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,056,384)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,096,384)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  40,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,056,384)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

PAUL THOMAS SHAW §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-108

ANN PICKLE, ET AL. §

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Paul Thomas Shaw, a prisoner confined at the Jasper County Jail, proceeding pro

se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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 June 12, 2023, Plaintiff was ordered to pay the $402.00 filing fee or submit an application

to proceed in forma pauperis within twenty days of the date of the 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.” 

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 action

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

Case 1:23-cv-00108-MJT-ZJH Document 3 Filed 07/12/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 9
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

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 12th day of July, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00108-MJT-ZJH Document 3 Filed 07/12/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 10
Marcus W. TUNSTALL, petitioner, v. John S. WOLFE, Warden, et al.

No. 18-6196.

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.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                             Years Ended March 31,
                                ---------------------------------------------
                                  1996       1997     1998       1999    2000
                                                 (In thousands)
Consolidated pretax income

<S>                             <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
from continuing operations      $ 3,024   $ 1,603   $ 7,111   $ 1,477   $ 5,855

Interest

                                  7,935     8,486     9,672    11,037    13,274

Net amortization of debt
discount and premium and
issuance expense
                                    244       261       325       385       628

Interest portion of

rental expense                      365       634     1,120     1,122     1,251
                                -------   -------   -------   -------   -------

Earnings

                                 11,568    10,984    18,228    14,021    21,008
                                =======   =======   =======   =======   =======


Interest

                                  7,935     8,486     9,672    11,037    13,274

Net amortization of debt
discount and premium and
issuance expense
                                    244       261       325       385       628

Interest portion of

rental expense                      365       634     1,120     1,122     1,251
                                -------   -------   -------   -------   -------


Fixed Charges                     8,544     9,381    11,117    12,544    15,153
                                =======   =======   =======   =======   =======


Ratio of earnings to
fixed charges                       1.4       1.2       1.6       1.1       1.4

</TABLE>
May 29, 1956 

Honorable Tom Reavley Opinion No. S- 199 

secretary of state - 

State of Texas Re: Proper method for fixing franAustin, Texas chise tax liability of a corporation dissolving within one year 

Dear Mr. Reavley: after incorporation. 

In your Letter requesting the opinion of this office on the abovecaptioned question you state in part as follows: 

“Although under ordinary circumstances a new 

domestic corporation would not be required to file a franchise tax return until the expiration of the first corporate 

year, it seems only logical that a corporation . . . [submitting Articles of Dissolution within one year after incorporation] should’be required to immediately file a return 

in order to present this office a basis for computing the 

franchise tax to be paid to permit it to legally dissolve. 

The Texas Business Corporation Act prohibits the filing 

of Articles of Dissolution unless the franchise tax is paid, 

and our problem then is one of determining the period for 

which the tax should be exacted. 

“Article 7084.V.C.S. of Texas, as amended, requires 

the computation of the tax upon the stated capital, surplus 

and undivided profits, and certain bonds, notes and debentures at $2 per $1.000 or a fractional part thereof ($2.25 

on and after May 1, 1956). but provides for a rditnimum tax 

of $25. This, of course, would be for one full year as further provided in this Article. 

‘With the foregoing facts before you, please advise 

this office If we should collect the franchise tax as would 

be disclosed by the return demanded of the corporation for 

one full year: or. should the tax be apportioned in order to 

exact the franchise tax only for the period from the date of 

filing Articles of Incorporation to the date of submitting 

the Articles of Dissolution? If the tax is to be apportioned 

and the amount for only a portion of the year should be less 

than the minimum, shouid that amount be accepted, or should 

we demand the minimum tax of $257” 
*. ,. 

Hon. Tom Reavley, page 2 (Opinion No. S-199) 

You should collect the franchise tax for a full year as disclosed by the return demanded of a domestic corporation which submits 

Articles of Dissolution within its first corporate year. There are no 

provisions for apportionment of franchise taxes due by corporations in 

Title 122, Chapter Three, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, or elsewhere in our 

statutes. 

SUMMARY 

The proper method of collecting the franchise taw 

of a private domestic corporation dissolving within one 

year after incorporation is to collect the franchise tax 

for a full year as disclosed by the franchise tax return 

demanded of the corporation. 

Yours very truly, 

APPROVED: 

We,. V. Geppert 

Taxation Division 

Mary K. Wall 

Reviewer 

J. Arthur Sandlin 

Reviewer 

JOHN BEN SHEPPERD 

Attorney General of Texas 

BY 

&&/$+&&A 

Henry tes Steen 

Assistant 

L. W. Gray 

,Special Reviewer 

Davis Grant 

First Assistant 

John Ben Sheppard 

Attorney General
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF John Bernard MARCIN.

No. D-3039.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

John Bernard Marcin, of Las Vegas, Nevada, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Willie Gene WILKS, Jr., petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 18-6316.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.
Alan Kenneth THOMPSON, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8729.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**AFFINITY GROUP, INC.**

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

I,Thomas F. Wolfe, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of AffinityGroup, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify as follows:

1.                                       This statement is provided pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 in connection with the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 (the “Periodic Report”);

2.                                       The Periodic Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

3.                                       The information contained in the PeriodicReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company as of dates and for the periods indicatedtherein.
| Date: November 3, 2006 |   |                      |
|------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                   |   |                      |
|                   |   |                      |
|                   |   | /s/ Thomas F. Wolfe       |
|                   |   | Thomas F. Wolfe           |
|                   |   | Senior Vice President and |
|                   |   | Chief Financial Officer   |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or suchother 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 to AffinityGroup, Inc. and will be retained by Affinity Group, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

35

----