alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS, et al., petitioners, v. Casey Marie WILKES, et al.

No. 17-1175.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
Dennis OBDUSKEY, petitioner, v. McCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP.

No. 17-1307.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF

INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH

FACEBOOK ACCOUNT

100001568225589 THAT IS STORED AT

PREMISES CONTROLLED BY META

PLATFORMS, INC.

Case No. 6:23-MJJUDGE LOVE

Filed Under Seal

ORDER

The United States has submitted an application pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b),

requesting that the Court issue an Order commanding Meta Platforms, Inc. ( Meta ), an

electronic communication service provider and/or a remote computing service, not to

notify any person (including the subscribers and customers of the account(s) listed in the

warrant) of the existence of the attached arrant until ninety (90) days after signature.

The Court determines that there is reason to believe that notification of the

existence of the attached warrant will seriously jeopardize the investigation or unduly

delay a trial, including by giving targets an opportunity to flee or continue flight from

prosecution, destroy or tamper with evidence, change patterns of behavior, intimidate

potential witnesses, or endanger the life or physical safety of an individual. See 18

U.S.C. § 2705(b).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED under 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b) that Meta shall not

disclose the existence of the attached warrant, or this Order of the Court, to the listed

subscriber or to any other person, for a period of ninety (90) days except that Meta may

Case 6:23-mj-00187-JDL Document 4 Filed 08/23/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 42
disclose the attached warrant to an attorney for Meta for the purpose of receiving legal

advice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application and this Order are sealed until

otherwise ordered by the Court.

Date

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 6:23-mj-00187-JDL Document 4 Filed 08/23/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 43
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31050-31051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10866]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 11742]


In the Matter of the Designation of Aum Shinrikyo (and Other 
Aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this 
matter and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary 
of the Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis 
for the designation of the Aum Shinrikyo (and other aliases) as a 
Foreign Terrorist Organization have changed in such a manner as to 
warrant revocation of the designation.

[[Page 31051]]

    Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of Aum Shinrikyo 
(and other aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, pursuant to 
Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 
U.S.C. 1189), shall be revoked.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register.
    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1189.

    Dated: May 11, 2022.
Antony J. Blinken,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2022-10866 Filed 5-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Trimeris, Inc. (the Company) for
the quarterly period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven D. Skolsky, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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.



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|                                         
|                                         
|/s/ STEVEN D. SKOLSKY                    
|Steven D. Skolsky Chief Executive
Officer

May 10, 2006

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 has been provided to Trimeris, Inc. and will be
retained by Trimeris, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Hugh MARTIN, et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-477.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS, 

AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS THAT OWN OR 

OPERATE WWW.FILTER1PRO.COM,

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-0117-JRG-RSP 

ORDER

Plaintiff Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”) previously filed a Motion for Entry of 

Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction. (Dkt. No. 13.) Magistrate Judge Payne 

entered a Report and Recommendation recommending granting Whirlpool’s Motion for Entry 

of Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction. (Dkt. No. 14.) Because no objections have been 

filed and for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Report and 

Recommendation is ADOPTED. It is therefore ORDERED that Whirlpool’s Motion for 

Entry of Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction (Dkt. No. 13) will be GRANTED by 

separate Order.

.

____________________________________

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 18th day of September, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-00117-JRG-RSP Document 15 Filed 09/18/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 362
Wen LIU, petitioner, v. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE.

No. 18-5180.

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's statements of operations, balance sheets and statements of cash
flows and is qualified by reference to such financial statements contained
within the Company's Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 1999
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001081919
<NAME> GTC TELECOM CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             500
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,889
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,208
<PP&E>                                         397,312
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 660,069
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          954,366
<BONDS>                                        132,697
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,287
<OTHER-SE>                                   (442,281)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   660,069
<SALES>                                        289,012
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               289,012
<CGS>                                          163,740
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  163,740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,489,685
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               268,176
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,537
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,360,876)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,361,676)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,361,676)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)


</TABLE>
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 02-3103

___________________________ Andrew Sasser lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner - Appellant

v. Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Corrections

lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent - Appellee

___________________________

No. 11-3346

___________________________ Andrew Sasser lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner - Appellant

v. Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Corrections

lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana

____________Submitted: December 13, 2013 Filed: February 2 6 , 2014

____________ Before RILEY, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

____________ RILEY, Chief Judge. The State of Arkansas’s petition for panel rehearing is predicated on a misreading of our opinion and a mischaracterization of the record. It should be clear the district court, on remand, must consider whether “[Andrew] Sasser’s state postconviction counsel fail[ed] to raise the[] four [potentially meritorious] ineffectiveness claims.” Sasser v. Hobbs, 735 F.3d 833, 853 (8th Cir. 2013). It should equally be clear that Sasser’s “postconviction counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness” will excuse procedural default only “if proved.” Id. (emphasis added). Far from determining Sasser has affirmatively overcome the procedural bar, our opinion recognizes we cannot presently determine whether these four claims remain procedurally barred in light of Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013). Our opinion therefore vacates the procedural default determination and remands for the district court to decide the two-part Trevino question in the first instance, after giving Sasser an opportunity to present evidence in support of his argument the four claims are no longer procedurally barred. This hearing will necessarily address the underlying merits of the four claims because, unless postconviction counsel’s failure to raise a claim was prejudicial, the claim remains procedurally barred despite Trevino. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). On remand, the State is free to argue Sasser’s postconviction counsel fully raised the four claims, see Arnold v. Dormire, 675 F.3d 1082, 1087 (8th Cir.
-2-2012), just as Sasser is free (1) to argue the State forfeited this argument or is

estopped from relying upon it, and (2) to show substantial and decisive factual differences between these four claims and the purportedly similar postconviction claims emphasized by the State. Because we do not consider it appropriate in this capital case to decide such fact-intensive questions for the first time on appeal, we deny the State’s petition for rehearing by the panel.

_____________________________

-3-
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Based on
a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2008 of Agree Realty Corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kenneth R. Howe,
Vice President and 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
      operationsof
      the Company.





/s/ Kenneth R. HoweKenneth
      R. HoweVice President, FinanceChief
      Financial Officer





March 13,
2009
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO. 6] 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEURIG DR. PEPPER, INC. 

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-cv-249

Jury Trial Demanded 

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

After considering the motion to dismiss [Dkt. No. 6], and related documents in support and in 

opposition to said motion, the Court finds that the motion should be DENIED. Defendant is welcome to 

re-file its motion again after completion of claim construction in this case set to be consolidated. 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 18-3 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 802
`DTCC Repo-US Treasury <30 YR - NYSE LIFFE - NYPC                     Code-045L2T
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 08/07/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000)                            OPEN INTEREST:       14,803
COMMITMENTS
     913    6,022      863   12,784    7,860   14,560   14,745      243       58

CHANGES FROM 07/31/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:          .)
       .        .        .        .        .        .        .        .        .

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     6.2     40.7      5.8     86.4     53.1     98.4     99.6      1.6      0.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       22)
       5        4        3       12       11       18       17`

---

Updated August 10, 2012
No. 6:23-cv-00188

Jay Williams,

Petitioner,

v.

Job Mongare,

Respondent.

ORD ER

This habeas corpus action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). On 

May 3, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending

that petitioner’s premature motion for summary judgment be denied 

as frivolous. Doc. 15. A copy of the report was mailed to the petitioner, who did not file written objections.

When no party objects to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for clear error. See Douglass 

v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and being satisfied that it 

contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. Petitioner’s motion (Doc. 9) is denied.

So ordered by the court on June 20, 2023.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00188-JCB-KNM Document 19 Filed 06/20/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 72
Monty BAUCH, Individually and as Father and Next Friend of O.B., a Minor, et al., petitioners, v. RICHLAND COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES, et al.

No. 18-257.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

3/28/23

Eastern District of Texas

GS HOLISTIC, LLC

4:23-cv-00249

KASKI KALI LLC d/b/a KUSH CIGAR and KUSHAL

RAJ BASTAKOTI,

KASKI KALI LLC d/b/a KUSH CIGAR

REGISTERED AGENT: KUSHAL RAJ BASTAKOTI

5933 DALLAS PKWY SUITE 400

PLANO, TX 75093

Sanjay K. Minocha, Esquire

Minocha Law Firm

3300 Oak Lawn Avenue

Suite 700

Dallas, Texas 75219

Case 4:23-cv-00249-SDJ Document 5 Filed 03/28/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 35
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

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

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

4:23-cv-00249

0.00

Case 4:23-cv-00249-SDJ Document 5 Filed 03/28/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 36
Jermaine MOORER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5817.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

FABIAN ARGUIJO §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-284

INMATE TRUST FUND §

MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING VENUE

Plaintiff Fabian Arguijo, an inmate at the Stiles Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636 and the 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.

Discussion

Plaintiff brings this action against the administrator of the inmate trust fund. Plaintiff

complains that the administrator has been stealing money from his inmate trust fund account. 

Analysis

The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1981, et seq., under which this case is brought, does not

contain a specific venue provision. Accordingly, venue in civil rights cases is controlled by 28

U.S.C. § 1391. Jones v. Bales, 58 F.R.D. 453 (N.D. Ga. 1972), aff’d per curium, 480 F.2d 805 (5th

Cir. 1973). When, as in this case, jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship, 28

U.S.C. § 1391 provides that venue is proper only in the judicial district where the defendants reside

or in which the claim arose. 

Case 1:23-cv-00284-MAC-ZJH Document 4 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 14
Plaintiff brings this complaint against an individual located in Huntsville. Plaintiff alleges

this individual has been stealing money from his account. Therefore, it is presumed that the claim

arose where the defendant works. His claims therefore arose in Huntsville, Walker County, Texas. 

In addition, the only defendant involved in plaintiff’s claim appears to reside in Walker County. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 124, Walker County is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. 

As Walker Countyis located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Texas, venue in the Eastern District of Texas is not proper. When

venue is not proper, the court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case

to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). This case

should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston

Division. An appropriate order so providing will be entered by the undersigned.

2

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 7th day of August, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00284-MAC-ZJH Document 4 Filed 08/07/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 15