alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RM01-5-000]

                    Take notice that on June 14, 2022, filers wanting to verify eTariff filings in the eTariff sandbox will no longer have the ability to upload XML files using FTP protocols as Microsoft is ending support for FTP. Instead, users will be able to verify their filings by uploading XML filings through a Commission website portal at                     *https://etariff.ferc.gov/​TariffSandbox.aspx.*

                    Until June 14, 2022, both the FTP portal and the new web portal will be available for use and testing. More detailed instructions for using the web                           ( print page 29307)                        portal will be available on or before June 14th at:                     *https://www.ferc.gov/​sandbox-electronic-test-site.*

                    To report any problems with testing the new web portal or for more information, contact the eTariff Advisory Staff at 202-502-6501 or                     *etariffresponse@ferc.gov.*

Dated: May 9, 2022.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-10357 Filed 5-12-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

TOUCHPOINT PROJECTION 

INNOVATIONS, LLC

v.

CNETWORKS CO., LTD,

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 2:23-cv-0233-JRG

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR TIME TO RESPOND TO 

CDNETWORKS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT (DKT. 10)

Plaintiff Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC (“Plaintiff”) here files this Unopposed 

Motion for Extension of Time to File its Response or Opposition to Defendant CDNetworks Co., 

Ltd.’s Opposed Motion to Set Aside Default (Dkt. 10). 

Plaintiff’s Response is currently due July 12, 2024. 

Plaintiff has requested and Defendant agrees to a 14-day extension of this deadline to July 

26, 2024. 

A proposed order is included herewith.

July 11, 2024,

/s/ Randall T. Garteiser

Randall Garteiser

Texas Bar No. 24038912

Chris Honea

Texas Bar No. 24059967

GARTEISER HONEA, PLLC

119 W. Ferguson Street

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: (903) 705-7420

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 2:23-cv-00233-JRG Document 11 Filed 07/11/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 105
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned attorney represents and confirms that a conference was conducted with 

opposing counsel prior to filing this Motion, and counsel indicated its agreement with the relief 

requested herein.

/s/ Randall T. Garteiser

Randall Garteiser

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above document has 

been served to all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service via the 

Court’s CM/ECF system.

/s/ Randall T. Garteiser

Randall Garteiser

Case 2:23-cv-00233-JRG Document 11 Filed 07/11/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 106
## United States Court of App eals F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 15 41

__ __ __ __ __ _ Eli nd a J. St rib li ng , *
* App el la nt , *
* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s v. * Dis tri ctCo ur t fo r th e * East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s. Ark an sa s St at e Hos pi ta l, *
* [UNPUBLISHED] App el le e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Su bm it te d: Marc h 7 , 20 12 Fi le d: Marc h 1 2, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re BYE, COLLOTON, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.
Eli nd a St rib li ng ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l un de r Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 37 1 of he r em pl oyme n t

- di sc riminat io n act io n. W e co nc lu de th e di sm is sa l was no t an ab us e of di sc ret io n: aft er be in g warn ed th at fai l u r e t o c o mp ly wit h th e co ur t’s di sc ov ery or de r co ul d res ul t in di sm is sa l of he r act io n, St rib li ng fai le d to pr ov id e fu ll

a n d c o mp l e te di sc ov ery res po ns es an d fai le d to ap pe ar fo r he r de po si ti on ; an d th e de fen da nt de m on st rat ed pr ejud i c e
. S e e Sen ti s Grp ., In c. v. Sh el l Oil Co ., 5 59 F.3 d 88 8, 89 8- 99 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w); cf. Aziz v. W rig ht , 34 F.3 d 58 7,

The Hon or ab le Ja m es M. Mo od y , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.58 8- 89 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (aff irming di sm is sa l un de r Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 41 (b ) whe re pr o se pl ai nt iff fai le d to co m

pl y wit h co ur t’s or de r to al lo w de po si ti on ; fin di ng th at vi ol at io n
was wil lfu l whe re pl ai nt iff was warn ed di sm is sa l wou ld be co ns eq ue nc e of co nt in ue d

no nc om pl ia nc e). W e al so co nc lu de th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t abu se it s di sc ret io n by de nyin g reco ns id erat io n, s e e S c h o f f st al l v. Hen de rs on , 2 23 F.3 d 81 8, 82 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ), an d we reject St rib li ng ’s arg um en ts th at th e co ur t erre d by ap po in ti ng sp eci fic

co un se l, cf. Tay lo r v. Dick el , 29 3 F.3 d 42 7, 43 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (n o co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y rig ht to effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l in ci vi l cas e), an d b y fai li ng to

“ rem an d” he r cas e to th e Equ al Em pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty Comm is si on
.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
MICHIGAN, petitioner, v. Charles Damon JONES.

No. 18-200.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
Gillman Roddy LONG, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8558.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

*320Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
    FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE WORKSHEET FOR HI-SHEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 10,913
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,281
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,787
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10,913
<SALES>                                        17,325
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               17,325
<CGS>                                          13,122
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  16,022
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             272
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,032
<INCOME-TAX>                                   11
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,021
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,021
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                    5
<LEGEND>                    The Financial Data Schedule
                            contains summary information
                            extracted from the unaudited
                            balance sheet of Louisiana Casino
                            Cruises, Inc. as of November
                            30,1999 and the related statement
                            of operations for the year ended
                            November 30, 1999 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>                  NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                  17,697
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                              620
<ALLOWANCES>                               152
<INVENTORY>                                134
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        21,474
<PP&E>                                  63,414
<DEPRECIATION>                          21,011
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          65,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    8,594
<BONDS>                                 53,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                     1
<OTHER-SE>                                 125
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            65,764
<SALES>                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        84,657
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           69,796
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            98
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       6,097
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          8,764
<INCOME-TAX>                             3,474
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      5,290
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          1,731
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                             3,559
<EPS-BASIC>                             3.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                             3.58


</TABLE>
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RULE 129b)(2) MOTION TO DISMISS 

PAGE 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION

SHUNDRA ANDERSON §

§

§ CIVIL NO. 2:23-cv-00195-JRG

§ JURY DEMANDED

VS. §

§

§

§

DOMINION FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC §

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH

On this the _____ day of _______________, 2024, came on for consideration Plaintiff’s

Motion to Quash Defendant’s Depositions on Written Questions in the above-styled and numbered 

cause. The Court, after considering said Motion, announced that it was of the opinion that said 

Motion should be granted.

It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Quash Defendant’s Depositions on Written Questions is hereby in all things GRANTED.

Case 2:23-cv-00195-JRG Document 29-2 Filed 06/19/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 202
Steve KASSAB, petitioner, v. S. SKINNER, et al.

No. 18-5963.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

DARIUS JASON §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-208

FNU MOORE, ET AL. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Darius Jason, a prisoner confined at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility,

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

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.

The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b). To date, the parties have not filed objections to the report.

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. Proper notice was given to Plaintiff at his last known address. See FED. R. CIV. P.

5(b)(2)(C). After careful review, the Court finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of

the United States Magistrate Judge are correct. 

ORDER

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

and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 6] is ADOPTED. A

Case 1:23-cv-00208-MJT-ZJH Document 8 Filed 08/24/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 18
final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s

recommendation. 

2

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 24th day of August, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00208-MJT-ZJH Document 8 Filed 08/24/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 19
Exhibit 32.3








Certification of Executive Vice President and Principal Financial Officer











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Century Casinos, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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, as amended; and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.














Date:  May 13, 2011








/s/ Margaret Stapleton


— — — — — — — — — — — —


Margaret Stapleton


Executive Vice President and Principal Financial Officer
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

JAY WILLIAMS, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

BOTIE HILLHOUSE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-263-JDK-KNM 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Jay Williams, a Henderson County Jail 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 K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, 

and recommendations for disposition. 

On September 29, 2023, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that 

the Court dismiss this case without prejudice for want of prosecution and Plaintiff’s 

failure to comply with a Court order. Docket No. 6. A copy of this Report was sent to 

Plaintiff. However, no objections have been received. 

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 

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), 

Case 6:23-cv-00263-JDK-KNM Document 7 Filed 11/01/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 57
2 

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, Plaintiff 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. 6) as the findings of this Court. It is 

therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of 

prosecution and Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an order of the Court. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1st November, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00263-JDK-KNM Document 7 Filed 11/01/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 58
Anibal PAGAN-ROMERO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6008.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

*392Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC D/B/A 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES,

Plaintiff, 

v.

AT&T INC. ET AL,

Defendants. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00202-JRG-RSP

(LEAD CASE)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Intervenor Ericsson Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to Intervene as 

a supplier of equipment and technology incorporated into the accused instrumentalities. Dkt. 

No. 47. After due consideration, and in light of its unopposed nature, the Court GRANTS the 

motion. It is therefore 

ORDERED that Ericsson is permitted to intervene as a defendant in the above-captioned 

Lead Case. Ericsson shall promptly file its responsive pleading. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 09/26/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1324
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 of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Clinical Trial Implementation Cooperative Agreement (U01 Clinical Trial Required).                    

*Date:*                         June 21, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         11:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G76, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Marci Scidmore, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G76, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 627-3255,                         *marci.scidmore@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 18, 2022.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-11052 Filed 5-23-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification of the Principal Financial Officer****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350****(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**I, Richard T. Marabito, the Chief Financial Officer of OlympicSteel, Inc. (the “Company”), certify that to the bestof my knowledge, based upon a review of this annual report onForm 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 ofthe Company (the “Report”):     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. By:     /s/ Richard T. Marabito           Richard T. Marabito     Olympic Steel, Inc.     Chief Financial OfficerMarch 10, 2005