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

JOHN ARREDONDO, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-131

§

POLK COUNTY JAIL, §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff John Arredondo, an inmate formerly confined at the Polk County Jail, proceeding

pro se, brought this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court referred this matter to the

Honorable Christine L. Stetson, 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 as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. 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 filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available

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

the United States Magistrate Judge are correct.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge is

ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.

________________________________________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 16th day of August, 2024.

Case 9:23-cv-00131-MAC-CLS Document 19 Filed 08/16/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 29
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00552

- CV

Cesar VELEZ

, Appellant

v.

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI

, Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 11974

Honorable Solomon Casseb III, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED

and this appeal is DISMISSED.

We order that all costs of this appeal, if any, a re taxed against appellant Cesar Velez.

SIGNED February 25, 2015.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned executive officer of WVS Financial
Corp. (the Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



/s/ Keith A. SimpsonKeith A. SimpsonVice-President andChief Accounting Officer


Date: November 13, 2009

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to WVS Financial Corp. and will be retained by WVS Financial Corp. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



E-4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AT&T SERVICES, INC., AT&T MOBILITY, 

LLC AND AT&T CORP.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00397

LEAD CASE

JURY TRIAL

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00398

MEMBER CASE

JURY TRIAL

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AT&T SERVICES, INC., AT&T MOBILITY, 

LLC AND AT&T CORP.,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING RESOLUTION 

OF INTER PARTES REVIEW AND MANUFACTURER CASES

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending Resolution for Inter Partes

Review and Manufacturer Cases. Having considered the Motion, it is hereby GRANTED. 

It is so ORDERED. 

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 69-1 Filed 10/16/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1178
JEDEDIAH C., petitioner, v. WEST VIRGINIA.

No. 18-6527.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied.
EXHIBIT 16 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-3 Filed 08/12/24 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 2409
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-3 Filed 08/12/24 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 2410
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-3 Filed 08/12/24 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 2411
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-3 Filed 08/12/24 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 2412
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-3 Filed 08/12/24 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 2413
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-3 Filed 08/12/24 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 2414
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-3 Filed 08/12/24 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 2415
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-3 Filed 08/12/24 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 2416
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-3 Filed 08/12/24 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 2417
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-3 Filed 08/12/24 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:

2418
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-3 Filed 08/12/24 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:

2419
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-3 Filed 08/12/24 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:

2420
Antonez Terril JOHNSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7156.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2019.

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON 

WIRELESS and VERIZON CORPORATE 

SERVICES GROUP, INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:23-CV-00352-JRG-RSP 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

AMEND ITS INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS 

Before the Court is Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend its Invalidity 

Contentions. The Court, having considered same, is of the opinion the motion should be 

GRANTED.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 59-2 Filed 03/04/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 971
SCPW-19-0000419

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

JANE J. P. LIU, Petitioner,

vs.

ALVIN T. ONAKA, Ph.D., in his capacity as Registrar of Vital

Statistics for the State of Hawai#i, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Jane J. P. Liu’s

petition for writ of mandamus, filed on June 4, 2019, the

documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and

the record, it appears that, based on the information presented

to this court, petitioner fails to demonstrate that she is

entitled to the requested extraordinary writ. See Kema v.

Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of

mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless

the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to

relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the

alleged wrong or obtain the requested action); Barnett v.

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-19-0000419

13-JUN-2019

03:06 PM
Broderick, 84 Hawai#i 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996) (with

respect to a public official, mandamus relief is available to

compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an

individual only if the individual’s claim is clear and certain,

the official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as

to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is available). 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 13, 2019. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson 

2
EXHIBIT A

SOTERA STIPULATION 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 55-1 Filed 06/07/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 887
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

___________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

___________

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

Petitioners,

v.

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Patent Owner.

___________

Case IPR2024-00315

Patent No. 9,094,888

___________

PETITIONERS’ SOTERA STIPULATION

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 55-1 Filed 06/07/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 888
2

Petitioners hereby stipulate that if the Board institutes inter partes review in 

this proceeding, IPR2024-00315, then Petitioners will not pursue in the parallel 

litigation, Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 

2:23-cv-00285 (E.D. Tex.), the same grounds in the Petition (Paper 3) or any 

grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the Board.

Date: May 7, 2024

/s/ James M. Glass

___________________________ 

James M. Glass

Registration No. 46,729

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

51 Madison Ave, 22nd Floor

New York, New York 10010

Tel: (212) 849-7142

Fax (212) 849-7100

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 55-1 Filed 06/07/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 889
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, I hereby certify that on May 7, 2024 the 

foregoing document was served via email on the following counsel of record:

rmirzaie@raklaw.com

rak_cobblestone@raklaw.com

ahayden@raklaw.com

nrubin@raklaw.com

ptong@raklaw.com

/s/ James M. Glass

James M. Glass

Registration No. 46,729

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 55-1 Filed 06/07/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 890
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2198

To suspend temporarily the duty on branched dodecylbenzene.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 14, 1999

Mr. SHAYS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on branched

dodecylbenzene.

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 SUSPENSION 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:

‘‘ 9902.29.01 Branched

dodecylbenzene

(CAS No. 123–

01–3) (provided

for in subheading

2902.90.30) ....... Free Free No change On or before

12/31/2002 ’’.
2

•HR 2198 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

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

Æ
Exhibit
      32.2








Certification
      of President and Co Chief Executive 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 June
      30, 2007 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
                aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.







Date:  August
      8, 2007





/s/
      Peter Hoetzinger


Peter
      Hoetzinger


President
      and Co Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

December 26, 2012

s1217

Order 

December 26, 2012

145472

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145472

COA: 302799

Calhoun CC: 2010-002909-FC

DARELLEE DOMINIQUE GORDON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 22, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC CO., LTD and

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00285-JRG-RSP

ORDER

Before the Court is the Unopposed Motion to Amend Docket Control Order filed by 

Defendants Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Dkt. No. 38.

After consideration, and noting its unopposed nature, the Motion is GRANTED. It is

ORDERED that Defendants’ deadline to comply with standing order regarding subjectmatter eligibility contentions is extended to December 27, 2023.

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ deadline to serve contentions pursuant to P.R. 

3-3 & 3-4 is extended to December 27, 2023.

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 39 Filed 12/29/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 418
EXHIBIT 3

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 53-4 Filed 04/11/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1011
From: Kristopher Davis

To: Kevin Hess; Alex Chern

Cc: Nicholas Mathews; Clare Churchman; Kaylee Hoffner; rak_headwater@raklaw.com; Do Not Clean

Subject: Re: Headwater v. AT&T (EDTX-397, -398) | Draft DO and PO

Date: Monday, December 18, 2023 5:20:49 PM

Attachments: 231218 Joint Motion to Enter Agreed PO (EDTX-397, 398).docx

ATT00001.htm

231218 Joint Motion to Enter Agreed DO (EDTX-397, 398).docx

ATT00002.htm

231218 Joint Motion to Enter Agreed DCO (EDTX-397, 398).docx

ATT00003.htm

Ex. A - Protective Order.docx

ATT00004.htm

Ex. A - Discovery Order.docx

ATT00005.htm

Ex. A - Docket Control Order.docx

ATT00006.htm

image431497.png

ATT00007.htm

image285249.png

ATT00008.htm

231218 ATT edits to Headwater Protective Order from 231215 RAK proposal.docx

ATT00009.htm

231218 ATT edits to Headwater Discovery Order from 231215 RAK proposal.docx

ATT00010.htm

231218 ATT edits to DRAFT Ex. A - Docket Control Order (EDTX-397 -398)_from 231215 RAK proposal.docx

ATT00011.htm

Kevin and Alex,

Please find attached draft joint motions for entry of the DO, DCO, and PO, along with clean

copies of those proposed orders. We accepted all of AT&T’s edits with the one exception of

changing 55 to 60, as discussed in our other thread confirming that we will start the case

narrowing conversation early next year. Please let us know whether AT&T has any proposed

edits and whose signature we should use for AT&T. 

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 53-4 Filed 04/11/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1012
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 notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 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 CA RLO S EN RI Q U E CA RD O N A RI V A S, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 71806 A ge nc yN o. A 075- 310- 026 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ay24, 2011 ** B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , T H O M A S , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C a r l os E nr i que C ar donaR i va s , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of G ua t e m a l a , pe t i t i ons pro se f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l f r om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um a nd w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew 

# FI LED JU N 03 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 71806 2 f o rs ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e f in d in g s o f

f a c t, in c lu d in g a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n s , Ch e b c h o u b v . I NS , 2 5 7 F . 3 d1 0 3 8 , 1 0 4 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) , a n dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. S ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on base d o n the i ncon si st enci es bo th w i thi n C ar do na R i vas’ t es t i m on y, and b etw ee n hi s t e s t i m onya nd doc um e nt arye vi de nc e c onc e rni ng w he the rornothe de s e rt e d the arm y, w hether or nothe part i cipat ed i n the harm of others du ri ng hi s m i l i t ary s e rv ic e , an dw h e n h is c o u s in w a s h arm e db yg u e r illa s . Se e i d. a t 1 0 4 3 . C o n tr aryto C a r d o n aR iv a s ’ a s s e rtio n , th e s e in c o n s is te n c ie s a r e m a te r ia l to h is c la im . Se e id . (i ncon si st enci es re l at i ng t o “ the event s l ea di ng up t o [pet i t i on er ’ s] departure” w er e m a te r ia l) ; s e e al

s o 8 U . S . C . § 1158( b) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( ape r s on w ho “ or de r e d, i nc i t e d, a s s i s t e d, orothe rw i s e part i c i pa t e d i n the pe r s e c ut i on” of a nype r s on on a c c ountof o n e o f th e f iv e g r o u n d s m ayn o t b e g r an te da s y lu m ) . I n th e ab s e n c e o f c r e d ib le te s tim o n y , C ar d o n aR iv a s ’ a s y lu m a n dw ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l c la im s f

a il. See Fa ra h v . A s h c r o

ft , 34 8 F . 3d 11 53 , 11 56 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
In Re Sherman Lamont FIELDS, petitioner.

No. 18-9288.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2019.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-8009

ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:13-cv-00925-CMH-TRJ; 1:91-cr-00139-CMH-3)

Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alejandro Dejesus Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Bernard James 

Apperson, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alejandro Hernandez seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order construing his pleading as a successive 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. We find 

no error in the court’s decision to construe the pleading as a 

§ 2255 motion. The court’s order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Hernandez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
3

Additionally, we construe Hernandez’s notice of appeal 

and informal brief as an application to file a second or 

successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 

200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to 

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims 

based on either:

(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be 

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have 

found the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive 

to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, 

that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (2012). Hernandez’s claims do not satisfy 

either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to 

file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
Capital Contribution Agreement



 Exhibit 10.15 
 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT 
 THIS CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
is made and entered into as of this 20th day of April, 2012, by and between (i) Ginger Punch Racing Corporation (“Raceco”) and (ii) Golden Pegasus Racing Incorporated (“Golden Pegasus”). 

W I T N E S S E T H: 
 1. Capital Contribution. Golden Pegasus is currently the sole shareholder of Raceco and in connection with the anticipated initial public offering (the “IPO”) of common shares of Raceco,
Golden Pegasus hereby agrees to pay any and all commissions and expense reimbursements paid to selling agents in connection with the IPO through an additional capital contribution to Raceco. No additional shares are to be issued in consideration for
any such additional capital contribution. Any such additional capital contribution will be paid no later than the closing date of the IPO. 
 2. Representations and Warranties of Golden Pegasus. Golden Pegasus represents and warrants to Raceco: 
 (a) Binding Obligation. This Capital Contribution Agreement is a valid, binding obligation of Golden Pegasus, enforceable in accordance with its terms; and 

(b) No Violation. The execution, delivery and performance of the Capital Contribution Agreement by Golden Pegasus do not violate
any laws, regulations, orders, decrees or agreements binding upon or affecting Golden Pegasus or this transaction; 
 3.
Representations and Warranties of Raceco. Raceco represents and warrants to Golden Pegasus that the execution, delivery and performance of this Capital Contribution Agreement by Raceco do not violate any laws, regulations, orders, decrees or
agreements binding upon or affecting Raceco or this transaction. 
 4. Governing Law. The Capital Contribution Agreement
was entered into and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been signed by Golden Pegasus and Raceco as of the
date first above written. 
  

			
	GINGER PUNCH RACING CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	     /s/ Lyle Strachan

	Name: Lyle Strachan
	Title:   Chief Financial Officer
	
	GOLDEN PEGASUS RACING INCORPORATED
		
	By:	 	     /s/ Michael Rogers

	Name: Michael Rogers
	Title:   Chief Executive Officer



  
 2