alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, '

'

Plaintiff, '

'

versus ' NO. 1:23-CR-56 

'

DEVANTE WADE RICHARD, '

'

Defendant. '

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION

ON DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA

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

Magistrate Judge, for administration of a guilty plea under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. Judge Hawthorn conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed 

by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and issued his Findings of Fact and 

Recommendation on Guilty Plea Before the United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate 

judge recommended that the court accept the Defendant’s guilty plea. He further 

recommended that the court adjudge the Defendant guilty on Count One of the Indictment filed 

against the Defendant.

The parties have not objected to the magistrate judge’s findings. The court ORDERS 

that the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of the United States Magistrate 

Judge are ADOPTED. The court accepts the Defendant’s plea but defers acceptance of the 

plea agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

It is further ORDERED that, in accordance with the Defendant’s guilty plea and the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, the Defendant, Devante Wade Richard, is 

Case 1:23-cr-00056-MAC-ZJH Document 20 Filed 08/15/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 54
2

adjudged guilty as to Count One of the Indictment charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) 

(Possession of a Firearm by a Prohibited Person).

Case 1:23-cr-00056-MAC-ZJH Document 20 Filed 08/15/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 55
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

The Court, after reviewing FFWCT, LLC, USA Flag, LLC, and Travis Burnett’s 

(collectively “USA Flag”) Motion to Seal Documents, enters this Order GRANTING the USA 

Flag’s motion and deeming the following documents, which are exhibits submitted with USA 

Flag’s Sur-Reply in opposition to USA Football’s motion for summary judgment regarding 

“national governing body” in Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-00465-ALM, filed under seal as of July 5, 

2024, the date the Sur-Reply was filed:

1. Exhibit 1 to the Nielsen Decl. – Excerpts from the deposition transcript of Curtis 

Hollomon. 

2. Exhibit 2 to the Nielsen Decl. – Excerpts from the deposition transcript of Charles 

Davis.

FFWCT, LLC; USA FLAG, LLC; AND 

TRAVIS BURNETT,

Plaintiffs,

v.

USA FOOTBALL, INC.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action Nos. 4:23-cv-00465-ALM 

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 82-1 Filed 07/05/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 2991
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10-KSB AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000918027
<NAME> HI-SHEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     320
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,014
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,538
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,719
<SALES>                                         17,641
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,641
<CGS>                                           11,731
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,039
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 257
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,345
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (530)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,875
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                          298
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,577
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1


Aware, Inc. 2019 Executive Bonus Plan


 


Aware,
Inc. (the “Company”) executives, Kevin Russell and David Martin (the “Participants”) will be eligible
to receive bonuses as described below based upon the achievement by the Company of a profit before taxes (“PBT”) target
(the “2019 Plan PBT Goal”) determined by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors.


 


The
amount of the bonus earned by a Participant will depend upon the Company’s actual 2019 PBT, as compared to the 2019 Plan
PBT goal. The following tables will be used to determine the applicable bonuses:


 


Kevin Russell


	Actual PBT as a % of 2019 Plan PBT Goal	
        

        Bonus Amount

	Less than 100% of 2019 Plan PBT Goal	$0
	100% of 2019 Plan PBT Goal	$25,000
	125% of 2019 Plan PBT Goal	$50,000
	150% or more of 2019 Plan PBT Goal	$100,000


 


David Martin


	Actual PBT as a % of 2019 Plan PBT Goal	
        

        Bonus Amount

	Less than 100% of 2019 Plan PBT Goal	$0
	100% of 2019 Plan PBT Goal	$15,000
	125% of 2019 Plan PBT Goal	$35,000
	150% or more of 2019 Plan PBT Goal	$70,000


 


The amount of bonus payable will
be subject to linear interpolation to reflect actual 2019 PBT between the 2019 Plan PBT Goal and 125% of 2019 Plan PBT Goal or
between 125% of 2019 Plan PBT Goal and 150% of 2019 Plan PBT Goal.


 


Bonus payouts, to the extent
earned, will be paid approximately 45 days following the end of the 2019 fiscal year. All bonus payouts are subject to statutory
deductions and are taxable at the time of payment. In the event that Mr. Russell’s or Mr. Martin’s employment by the
Company terminates during the fiscal year by reason of retirement, total and permanent disability, or death, the terminated person
will receive a pro-rated bonus. If Mr. Russell’s or Mr. Martin’s employment by the Company is terminated by the Company
without cause, the Compensation Committee may, in its discretion, award the terminated person a pro-rata bonus. In the event that
Mr. Russell’s or Mr. Martin’s employment terminates for any other reason, including resignation and discharge for cause
prior to the bonus payout date, all rights to a bonus will be forfeited. All payouts
from this bonus plan are subject to final approval by the Compensation Committee, which shall have the authority to reduce, but
not increase, any amounts payable under the Plan. 


 


The adoption and maintenance
of the 2019 Executive Bonus Plan shall not be deemed a contract of employment. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to give
Mr. Russell or Mr. Martin the right to be retained in the employ of the Company or to interfere with the right of the Company to
discharge Mr. Russell or Mr. Martin at any time, nor shall it interfere with Mr. Russell or Mr. Martin’s right to terminate
their employment at any time.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESUS MANUEL GUTIERREZ-NEYOY,

AKA Jesus Manuel Guitierrez-Neyoy,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-72979

Agency No. A205-578-246

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 26, 2016**

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Jesus Manuel Gutierrez-Neyoy, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting his applications for

FILED

AUG 02 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Leal v. Holder, 771 F.3d

1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2014), and deny the petition for review. 

Gutierrez-Neyoy’s contention that his conviction for felony endangerment

under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-1201(A) is not categorically a crime

involving moral turpitude is foreclosed by our decision in Leal v. Holder. Id. at

1146 (felony endangerment in Arizona is a crime involving moral turpitude). 

Accordingly, the BIA did not err in determining that Gutierrez-Neyoy is statutorily

ineligible for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. 

§§ 1101(f)(3), 1229b(b)(1)(B), 1229c(b)(1)(B).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 13-72979
# FILED
December 11, 1996 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE
WALTER A. DICKMAN, ) ) Plaintiff /Appella nt, )

) Putnam Chancery ) No. J-57 51 VS. ) ) Appeal N o. ) 01A01-9605- CV-00210 HOMES OF LE GEND , INC. and ) MEADOWS HOMES, INC., ) ) Defenda nts/Appell ees. ) 

## CONCURRING OPIN ION

I concur with the court’s conclusion that granting the summ ary judgment in this case was inappr

opriate. Summary

judgments should not be granted when doubt exists with regar d to the con clusion s to be drawn from the facts

. Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W. 2d 208, 21 1 (Tenn. 1 993); Clifton v. Bass, 908 S.W. 2d 205, 208 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) ; Mansfield v . Colonial Freight Sys., 862 S.W. 2d 527, 530 (Tenn. Ct. App. 19 93).
Walter Dickman alleges that the electric furnace he was repairing when he was electrocuted was d angerous a nd defec tive eithe

r because it was im properly wiredor becaus e the brea kers assoc iated wit

h the furna

ce wer e mislabe led. The manufacturer

and seller of the mobile home in which the heater had been installed asserted thatMr. Dickman was responsible for his own injuries because he failed to take adeq

uate precautio ns to assure that the electric current to the heater was turned off before he

began wor

king on it.
The court has n ote d that the affidavits touching on these issues paint an incomplete

and unsatisf

actory pic ture of the

cause of Mr. Dickman’s inju ries. T he adequacy of Mr. D ickman’s precauti ons before working on

the he ater depend upon the conf

ig uration of the wiring in the mobile home and the heater itself. None of the af

fidavits pr

ovide a complet

e and clear

picture of

the wiri ng, and thus-2-

we cannot conc lude based o n theseaffid avits that M r. Dic kman was negligent when he began to repair the furnace after verifying thatthe homeowner had turned off the break er labeled “h eat.”

_________________ ___________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s not * pr e c e de nte xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T N I K K I PO O SH S, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. P H IL L IP M O R R IS U S A , IN C . ; P H IL IP M O R R IS C O M P A N IE S , IN C . ; R . J. REY N O LD S TO BA CCO H O LD I N G S, I N C. ; R. J . REY N O LD S TO BA CCO C OMP AN Y; NA B I S C O G R OU P H O L D I N G S C O R P .; N A B I S C O I N C .; B R OWN A ND WI L L I AMS ON T OB AC C O C OR P OR AT I ON , in d iv idu a llyan da s s u c c e s s o rb ym e r g e rto T h e A m e r ic an T o b a c c o C o m p an yan dits p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t ; BRI TI SH AME R I C AN T OB AC C O C OMP AN Y PLC; LO RI LLA RD TO BA CCO C O M P A N Y ; L O R I L L A R D I N C .; L I GG E T T GR OU P I NC OR P OR AT E D; LI GG ET T & M YERS I NC. ; LI GG ET T AN D MYE R S T OB AC C O C OMP AN Y; VECT OR GROU P L TD. ; HI LL & KN O W LTO N I N C; TO BA CCO I NS T I T UT E , I NC . ; C OU NC I L F OR TO BA CCO RESEA RCH U SA N o. 08- 16338 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 4 -cv -0 1 2 2 1 -P JH

ME MOR AN DU M * 

# FI LED JU L 14 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he H onor abl e W i l l i a m T . H art , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJudge f or ** the N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof I l l i noi s , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on.

- 2 - 08- 16338 I NC OR P OR AT E D; DN A P L AN T T E C HN OL OG Y, C OR P OR AT I ON ; S A F E W A Y I N C ., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees.

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f

C a lif o rn ia P hy l l i s J . H a m i l t on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d and S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r12, 2008 S an F r an c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: B . F L E T C H E R and M cK E O W N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and H A R T , D i stri ct Judg e. ** F o llo w in g c e rtif ic a tio n o f

c e rta in q u e s tio n s b yth is c o u rt, th e C a lif o rn ia S up re m e C o u rt clar ifiedth e s tate law li m it atio n s p er io dap p li cab le to p lain ti ff’s c l a i m s . B a s e d on tha tde c i s i on, the j udgm e ntof the di s tr i c tc ourti s va c a t e d and the c a s e i s r e m ande d f

orf urthe rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th the de c i s i on. Se e P oos hs v . P h illip Mo rr is U

S A , I n c ., 51 C a l . 4 788, 250 P . 3d 181 ( 2011) . A l s o, the

th p e n d in g r e la te dm an d a m u s p e titio n is m o o t an dw ill b e d is m is s e d.

B e c aus e of

pl a i nt i f f’ s i l l ne s s , the di s tr i c tc ourti s ur ge d t o r e s ol ve the re m ai ni ng i ss ues i n thi s c as e a s s oo n as possibl e.- 3 - 08- 16338

V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.
Exhibit 31.1 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER 

I, Carl Spana, certifythat: 

1.              I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Palatin Technologies,          Inc.; 

2.              Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue          statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make          the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements          were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly          report; 

3.              Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information          included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the          financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as          of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

4.              The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for          establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in          Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

a)              designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material          information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,          is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the          period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

b)              evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and          procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the          period covered by this report, based on such evaluation; and 

c)              disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control          over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent          fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to          materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial          reporting. 

5.              The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on          our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit          committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the          equivalent function): 

a)              all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls          which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,          summarize and report financial data and have identified for the          registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

b)              any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees          who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls. 

Date: November 14, 2003 

/s/ Carl Spana
ap-ex1029_41.htm



 

Exhibit 10.29

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO RETIREMENT AND CONSULTING AGREEMENT 

This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) to the Retirement and Consulting Agreement (as amended to date, the “Agreement”) is entered into by and between Union Electric Steel Corporation (the “Company”) and Robert G. Carothers (the “Executive”), effective as of January 1, 2019.  All capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.   

WHEREAS, the Company remains to be in need of the Consulting Services, and the Executive wishes to continue to provide the same.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:


	
1.
	
The Consulting Period, as described in Section 2(a), is hereby extended until December 31, 2019.





	
2.
	
The last sentence of Section 2(a) is hereby amended by replacing “2018” with “2019.”





	
3.
	
Except as amended by this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect. 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and intending to be legally bound, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above. 

 


		
	
 
	
UNION ELECTRIC STEEL CORPORATION

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
/s/ Rodney L. Scagline

	
 
	
Rodney L. Scagline, President

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
EXECUTIVE

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
/s/ Robert G. Carothers

	
 
	
Robert G. Carothers
Gavin CULLENS, petitioner, v. Cindi CURTIN, Warden.

No. 18-6721.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 21 - Subsidiaries of the Registrant

|(a) |  | MetaSolv Software, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------

|(b) |  | MetaSolv Canada Inc., a Canadian (Nova Scotia) corporation
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------

|(c) |  | MetaSolv Canada Holdings Inc., a Canadian (Nova Scotia) corporation
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------

|(d) |  | MetaSolv Software Canada Inc., a Canadian (Nova Scotia) corporation
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------

|(e) |  | MetaSolv Holdings (UK) Limited, a United Kingdom private limited company
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(f) |  | Orchestream Holdings Ltd., a United Kingdom private limited company
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------

|(g) |  | MetaSolv Software (UK) Limited, a United Kingdom private limited company
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2094 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2094

    To amend the Webb-Kenyon Act to allow any State, territory, or 
possession of the United States to bring an action in Federal court to 
  enjoin violations of that Act or to enforce the laws of such State, 
territory, or possession with respect to such violations, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 9, 1999

 Mr. Ehrlich introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on 
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Webb-Kenyon Act to allow any State, territory, or 
possession of the United States to bring an action in Federal court to 
  enjoin violations of that Act or to enforce the laws of such State, 
territory, or possession with respect to such violations, and for other 
                               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 ``State Responsible Alcohol Access 
Enforcement Act''.

SEC. 2. ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS PROHIBITING SHIPMENTS OF ALCOHOL.

    The Act of March 1, 1913 (commonly referred to as the ``Webb-Kenyon 
Act''), and section 202(b) of the Liquor Law Repeal and Enforcement Act 
(27 U.S.C. 122) are amended by adding at the end the following: ``Any 
State, the District of Columbia, any territory of the United States, or 
any place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States may bring an action in the appropriate United States 
district court, or in the case of a territory or place outside the 
United States, in an appropriate court of Federal jurisdiction, to 
enjoin the shipment or transportation of liquor in violation of this 
section or to enforce the laws of such State, the District of Columbia, 
such territory, or such place, as the case may be, with respect to such 
shipment or transportation.''.

SEC. 3. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION STUDY.

    The Federal Trade Commission shall conduct a study to determine if 
the Commission needs additional authority under section 5 of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to regulate the sale, 
marketing, and advertising of alcoholic beverages in commerce through 
all forms of remote commerce. Such study shall include an examination 
of the current state of alcoholic beverage retailing through all forms 
of remote commerce.
                                 <all>
```
Aaron Joseph EMINETH, petitioner, v. OREGON.

No. 18-455.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Oregon denied.
Bart H. RIPPL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-568.

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.