alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Justin JENKINS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6431.

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.
Miguel RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7004.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

STEVEN LEE
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 902

[ October 22, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Scott Suskauer , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2020

- MH

000582

- XXX X

- NB

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine N. Austin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robert Gregg, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale , for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, M AY and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
CAVE CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, petitioner, v. OPTUMINSIGHT, INC.

No. 18-590.

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.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of E. O.

Appellate case number: 01-20-00212-CV

Trial court case number: 93697-F

Trial court: 300th District Court of Brazoria County

This is an appeal from a final decree terminating parental rights. Appeals from orders 

terminating the parent-child relationship are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of 

the date the notice of appeal is filed. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a), reprinted in TEX. GOV’T 

CODE, tit. 2, subtit. F app. This requirement for priority adjudication extends from the priority 

given to the best interest of the child. C.f. Coleman v. Coleman, 109 S.W.3d 108, 113 (Tex. App.—

Austin 2003, no pet.). The notice of appeal in this case was filed on March 9, 2020, and thus, the 

date of final disposition should be no later than September 4, 2020.

Appellant’s brief is due on April 8, 2020. Appellant’s retained counsel has filed a motion 

for extension of time to file the brief, requesting an extension until 30 days after the Texas 

Governor’s State of Disaster order is lifted. Counsel further states that she has a suppressed 

immune system and will have to make alternate arrangements to retrieve the reporter’s and clerk’s

records from the Brazoria County Courthouse.

We grant the motion but extend the deadline for filing appellant’s brief until April 28, 

2020. Because the reporter’s and clerk’s records have been filed in this Court, they are available 

to counsel online via the attorney portal on this Court’s website.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Richard Hightower_____

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___March 24, 2020____
## Court of Appeals of the State of Geo rgia

ATLA NTA,

_________________ _ The Court of

Appeals he reby passes

the followi

ng order:
A15D0007. ANGELA J. T HIGPEN v. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, A S TRUSTEE. Angela J . Thigpen, defendant in the underlying state court dispossessory action, has filed an application for discretionary appeal from the trial court’s order dismis sing her counterclaim s. From the m aterials submit

ted with th e applica

tion, it appears t hat the challenged ord er resolv ed all pending issue s. Further, no provision of OCGA § 5-6-35 appears to a

pply to t his case. The orde r, ther

efore, appears to be subject to direct appeal pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). We will gra

nt an other

wise tim ely a pplication f

or discre tionary

appeal if the lower cou rt’s ord er is sub

ject to d irec t ap pea l. Se e OCG A § 5- 6-3 5 (j) . Acc ord ing ly, this applicati on is hereby GRAN TED, and Thigpen shall have ten days f rom t he date of this order to file a notice of a ppeal wit h the trial court. I f she has a

lready filed a notice of appeal

in the trial court, she need not file a second notice. The cle rk of the trial court is DIRECTED to include a copy of this order

in the record t

ransmitted to the Court o f Appeal s.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Offi

ce, Atlant a,_______________

___ I certif y that t he above is a t

rue extract f

rom the minutes of the Court

of Appeals

of Georgia. Witness my signature a nd the seal of sai d co urt hereto aff

ixed the day and year last above writt

en.
, Clerk. 09/09/2014 September 09, 2014
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2168

To temporarily reduce the duty on certain cathode-ray tubes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 10, 1999

Mr. RAMSTAD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To temporarily reduce the duty on certain cathode-ray tubes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY REDUCTION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.85.42 Cathode-ray

data/graphic display tubes having

a video display

diagonal not exceeding 30 cm

(provided for in

subheading

8540.60.00) ....... 2% No change No change On or before

12/31/2004 ’’.
2

•HR 2168 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to goods entered,

3 or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2133

PEGGY I. JOHNSON, Plaintiff – Appellant,

v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cv-00015-RJC-DCK)

Submitted: March 20, 2009 Decided: April 8, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Peggy I. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Alan Michaels, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Peggy I. Johnson appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny her summary judgment motion and to grant the Commissioner’s summary judgment motion in her action seeking review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny her disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Johnson v. Astrue , No. 3:07-cv-00015- RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
William S. POFF, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-195.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of *Lagos v. United States,* 584 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1684, 201 L.Ed.2d 1 (2018).
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 31873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11241]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD22-9-000]


Notice of New England Winter Gas-Electric Forum

    Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) will convene a forum on Thursday, September 8, 2022, from 
approximately 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The forum will be 
held in Burlington, Vermont and will be open to the public.
    The purpose of this forum is to discuss the electricity and natural 
gas challenges facing the New England Region. The objective of the 
forum is to achieve greater understanding among stakeholders in 
defining the electric and natural gas system challenges in the New 
England Region.
    Registration for in-person attendance will be required and there is 
no fee for attendance. The forum will also be available on webcast. A 
supplemental notice will be issued with further details regarding the 
forum agenda, as well as any updates in timing and logistics, including 
registration for members of the public and the nomination process for 
panelists. Information will also be posted on the Calendar of Events on 
the Commission's website, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event. The forum 
will be transcribed.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please 
send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#503133333523233932393c39242910363522337e373f26"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c4a5a7a7a1b7b7ada6ada8adb0bd84a2a1b6a7eaa3abb2">[email protected]</span></a>, call toll-free (866) 208-3372 
(voice) or (202) 208-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to (202) 208-2106 with 
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this forum, please contact 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f2bc9785b79c959e939c96b49d80879fb294978091dc959d84"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e103b291b3039323f303a18312c2b331e383b2c3d70393128">[email protected]</span></a> for technical or logistical questions.

    Dated: May 19, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-11241 Filed 5-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 10-K and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                                648
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       6,330
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                        27,133
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   37,357
<PP&E>                                             20,578
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     60,248
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              18,188
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                              167
<OTHER-SE>                                         15,440
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       60,248
<SALES>                                            85,868
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        0
<CGS>                                              64,246
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      26,607
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (16,528)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  2,589
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     8,955
<INCOME-TAX>                                        3,881
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                        5,074
<EPS-BASIC>                                          2.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        2.43



</TABLE>
Valiant WHITE, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 18-6390.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                          42,786
<SECURITIES>                                    31,276
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,962
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     25,233
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,670
<PP&E>                                          11,878
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,212
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,690
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                     105,394
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,100
<SALES>                                         40,511
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,511
<CGS>                                           21,472
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,472
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,707
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (765)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,097
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,875
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,222
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,222
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        

</TABLE>
DM2\18503361.1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES,

Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T SERVICES INC.; AT&T MOBILITY 

LLC; and AT&T CORP.,

Defendants,

ERICSSON INC.,

Intervenor.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP

(Lead Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES,

Plaintiff,

v.

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON 

WIRELESS,

Defendants,

ERICSSON INC.,

Intervenor.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00203-JRG-RSP

(Member Case)

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES,

Plaintiff,

v.

T-MOBILE USA, INC.,

Defendant,

ERICSSON INC.,

Intervenor.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00204-JRG-RSP

(Member Case)

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 47-7 Filed 09/25/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1177
2

DM2\18503361.1

ORDER GRANTING ERICSSON’S MOTION TO INTERVENE 

Before the Court is Intervenor Ericsson Inc.’s (“Ericsson”) Motion to Intervene (the 

“Motion”). Ericsson moved to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) or, in 

the alternative, pursuant to Rule 24(b). Having considered the Motion, and the relevant authorities, 

the Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, Ericsson is 

permitted to intervene in these actions and is GRANTED LEAVE to file a responsive pleading in 

intervention within forty-eight (48) hours of entry of this Order.

SO ORDERED.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 47-7 Filed 09/25/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1178
Vahid ASRARI, petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

No. 17-1535.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




The Board of Directors
Nucentrix Broadband Networks, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-79913 and 333-47550) of Nucentrix Broadband Networks, Inc. of our
report dated April 4, 2002, except for note 17, which is as of April 18, 2002,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Nucentrix Broadband Networks,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for
the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000, the periods from January 1, 1999 to
April 1, 1999, the effective date of the reorganization discussed in the
paragraph below (the "Effective Date"), and from the Effective Date to December
31, 1999 and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in
the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of Nucentrix Broadband
Networks, Inc.

Our report states that upon consummation of a prenegotiated Plan of
Reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on the
Effective Date, the Company adopted fresh start reporting in accordance with
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Statement of Position 90-7,
Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization Under the Bankruptcy Code. As
a result of the application of fresh start reporting, the consolidated financial
statements of Nucentrix Broadband Networks, Inc. and subsidiaries for the period
from the Effective Date to December 31, 1999 are presented on a different cost
basis than those for periods prior to the Effective Date, and accordingly, are
not directly comparable.

Our report also contains an explanatory paragraph that the Company's recurring
losses from operations and the resulting dependence upon access to additional
financing raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going
concern. The consolidated financial statements and the financial statement
schedule do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of
that uncertainty.



                                                         KPMG LLP

Dallas, Texas
May 7, 2002
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

Eastern District of Texas Headwater Research LLC 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Headwater Research LLC 09/05/2023 /s/ James S. Tsuei James S. Tsuei CA Bar No. 285530

Russ August & Kabat 

12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90025 jtsuei@raklaw.com (310) 826-7474 (310) 826-6991 Print Save As... Reset

Plaintiff

v.

Verizon Communications Inc. et al

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 18 Filed 09/05/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 462
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DEMETRIA SCOTT, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-263

§

UNKNOWN DEFENDANT, §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING 

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Demetria Scott, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit. The court previously

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 has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

recommending the case be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b). To date, the parties have not filed objections.

The court has received the Report and Recommendation, 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 magistrate judge are correct.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (#6) is

ADOPTED. A final judgment shall be entered dismissing this lawsuit.

Case 1:23-cv-00263-MAC-ZJH Document 8 Filed 09/11/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 14
Jonathan WALKER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8393.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Stephen YAGMAN, petitioner, v. Michael J. COLELLO.

No. 18-582.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Shawn ALUISO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6698.

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>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                        29,604
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 544,839
<ALLOWANCES>                  (36,353)
<INVENTORY>                   287,541
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              913,498
<PP&E>                        1,329,718
<DEPRECIATION>                961,431
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                2,118,580
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,889,470
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      2,469
<OTHER-SE>                    (458,629)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  2,118,580
<SALES>                       2,302,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              2,302,034
<CGS>                         1,760,117
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,760,117
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              1,676,057
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            239,927
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (1,374,067)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (1,374,067)
<DISCONTINUED>                (358,929)
<EXTRAORDINARY>               18,201
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (1,714,795)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (0.690)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0


</TABLE>
Darrell J. HARPER, petitioner, v. TEXAS, et al.

No. 17-8926.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992)*(per curiam )* .