alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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). E O H / R es ear ch 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 DO NN Y E. M AX W EL L, P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. M . C. KRAM ER ; ATTORNEY GENERAL, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 15831 D . C . N o . 1 : 0 7 - C V - 0 0 5 4 8 - O WW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia O l i ve rW . W ange r , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e bruary16, 2010 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , G O U L D , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED MA R 02 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSE O H / Res ea r ch 08- 15831 2 C alifo rn ia state p riso n erD o n n y E . M ax w ell ap p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s o r d e rd is m is s in g h is 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 h ab e a s p e titio n a s u n tim e ly , an dw e v a c a te and r e m and. O n appe a l , r e s ponde nt s c onc e de tha tM a xw e l l ’ s pe t i t i on w a s t i m e l y . F r om the r e c or d, i ti s appar e nttha tM a xw e l l w a s e nt i t l e d t o t ol l i ng be tw e e n June 5, 2006, an dF e b ru ary7 , 2 0 0 7 , w h ile h is s ta te h ab e a s p e titio n s w e r e p e n d in g . See 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) ; s e e a ls o E v a n s v . Ch a v is , 5 4 6 U . S . 1 8 9 , 1 9 1 (2 0 0 6 ). A cco rd i n g l y, hi s pet i t i on w as t i m el y. W e vac at e the di sm i ss aland rem and t o the di stri ctcourt f orc ons i de r a t i on of

the m e r i t s of

M a xw e l l ’ s pe t i t i on. M a xw e l l ’ s r e que s tt o s tr i ke th e s up p le m e n ta l e x c e rp ts o f r e c o r dis d e n ie da s m o o t. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 31909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11255]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-1004]


Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: 
Scottsdale Research Institute

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

SUMMARY: Scottsdale Research Institute, has applied to be registered as 
a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). 
Refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION listed below for further drug 
information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or 
objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before 
July 25, 2022. Such persons may also file a written request for a 
hearing on the application on or before July 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all 
comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into 
the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier 
comments. Please go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the 
online instructions at that site for submitting comments. Upon 
submission of your comment, you will receive a Comment Tracking Number. 
Please be aware that submitted comments are not instantaneously 
available for public view on https://www.regulations.gov. If you have 
received a Comment Tracking Number, your comment has been successfully 
submitted and there is no need to resubmit the same comment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 
is notice that on March 28, 2022, Scottsdale Research Institute, 12815 
North Cave Creek Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85022, applied to be registered 
as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled 
substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Drug
          Controlled  substance            code          Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lysergic Acid Diethylamide..............    7315  I
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled 
substance for internal testing to prepare a drug master file. No other 
activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.

Kristi N. O'Malley,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-11255 Filed 5-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Gustave S. DRIVAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18M80.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM 39081

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Jonathan B. STUMP, JR.

Airman (E-2), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 27 June 2017

________________________

Military Judge: J. Wesley Moore

Approved sentence: Dishonorable discharge, confinement for 2 years, 

forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E-1. Sentence adjudged 8 March 2016 by GCM convened at Joint Base McGuire–Dix–

Lakehurst, New Jersey. 

For Appellant: Captain Patrick A. Clary, USAF.

For Appellee: Major Meredith L. Steer, USAF; Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.

Before MAYBERRY, HARDING, and C.BROWN, Appellate Military 

Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 

59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). 
United States v. Stump, No. ACM 39081

2

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

KURT J. BRUBAKER

Clerk of the Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

WILLOW INNOVATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

CHIARO TECHNOLOGY, LTD., 

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00229-JRG

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

WILLOW’S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE 

Pursuant to the Court’s Order (Dkt. 38), Plaintiff Willow Innovations, Inc. files this notice 

confirming that it has served its Invalidity Contentions Pursuant to Patent Local Rules 3-3 and 3-4 

on counsel for Chiaro Technology, Ltd. on November 9, 2023. 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 51 Filed 11/10/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 2798
2 

Dated: November 10, 2023 /s/ Timothy S. Durst

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

Timothy S. Durst (TX #00786924) 

tdurst@omm.com 

Cason Garrett Cole (TX #24109741) 

ccole@omm.com

2501 North Harwood Street, Suite 1700 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Telephone: (972) 360-1900 

Facsimile: (972) 360-1901 

Robert F. Shaffer (admitted pro hac vice) 

rshaffer@omm.com 

Jason Fountain (admitted pro hac vice) 

jfountain@omm.com 

Miao Liu (admitted pro hac vice) 

mliu@omm.com

1625 Eye St., NW

Washington, DC 20006 

Telephone: (202) 383-5300 

Facsimile: (202) 383-5414 

Carolyn S. Wall (admitted pro hac vice) 

cwall@omm.com

Times Square Tower

7 Times Square 

New York, New York 10036 

Telephone: (212) 326-2000 

Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 

Laura Burson (TX # 24091995) 

lburson@omm.com 

400 South Hope St 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Telephone: (213) 430-6000 

Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

WILLOW INNOVATIONS, INC.

Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 51 Filed 11/10/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 2799
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented 

to electronic services are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF 

system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on November 10, 2023. 

/s/ Timothy S. Durst 

Timothy S. Durst 

Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 51 Filed 11/10/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 2800
MANDATE

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00988-CR

Stephen Joseph Altobello, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appealed from the 184th District Court 

of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1397278). 

Opinion delivered Per Curiam. 

TO THE 184TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals on March 3, 2015, the cause upon appeal to 

revise or reverse your judgment was determined. Our Court of Appeals made its 

order in these words:

This cause was heard on the motion of the appellant to withdraw notice of 

appeal. Having considered the motion the Court orders the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order the mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said 

Court in this behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Kem Thompson Frost, Chief Justice of our Fourteenth 

Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Houston, March 06, 

2015.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

KAZIM OLADOTUN OYENUGA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

OMOYELE SOWORE, ET AL.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-00389-ALMAGD

NOTICE OF IMPENDING DISMISSAL

The court’s records indicate that more than a year has passed since the filing of the 

Complaint (Dkt. #1). To date, Defendants Ayokunle James Gbadebo, Sahara Reporters Media 

Group Inc., Saharareporters.com, and Omoyele Sowore have not been served. This notice serves 

to inform pro se Plaintiff Kazim Oladotun Oyenuga that this action shall be dismissed without 

prejudice as to the unserved Defendants unless Plaintiff completes service of process by the date 

specified below and in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

To avoid dismissal under Rule 4(m), if more than 90 days are necessary for service of 

process, Plaintiff must execute a verified petition regarding service of process, advising the court:

A. That the case should not be dismissed as to the unserved Defendants;

B. That the failure to obtain service upon the unserved Defendants is not due to the 

fault of the party or counsel seeking to avoid dismissal;

C. The reasons why the case against the unserved Defendants should not be dismissed, 

set forth in detail and demonstrating good cause; and

D. That service will be effected on the unserved Defendants within thirty (30) days of 

the date of the petition.

This petition must be filed with the court on or before Thursday, June 13, 2024, at 5:00 

p.m. If the court is satisfied that the case should not be dismissed as to the unserved Defendants, 

Case 4:23-cv-00389-ALM-AGD Document 13 Filed 06/05/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 51
2

Plaintiff will be so notified. If dismissal of the case as to the unserved Defendants is satisfactory 

to the Plaintiff, no action is required. By executing the petition regarding service of process, 

Plaintiff need not appear in support thereof until and/or unless so notified by the court. Failure to 

respond will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 4:23-cv-00389-ALM-AGD Document 13 Filed 06/05/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 52
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), each of the
undersigned members of the Board of Directors of VL Dissolution Corporation
(the Company), hereby certify that, to the best of his knowledge: 1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Periodic
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company
for the periods covered by the Periodic Report. /s/ DAVID A. LISOWSKI
David A. Lisowski, Director
    
    Date: August 17, 2004/s/ ANTHONY B. PETRELLI
Anthony B. Petrelli, Director
    
    Date: August 17, 2004/s/ DAVID M. RISLEY
David M. Risley, Director
    
    Date: August 17, 2004
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to VL Dissolution Corporation (the Company) and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or
its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which
it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.
Allan Wayne RENCOUNTRE, petitioner, v. Colby BRAUN, Warden.

No. 18-6539.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC 

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., 

and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 

AMERICA, INC. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP 

 

ORDER TO PURCHASE JURY MEALS 

 In the interest of justice, jurors are ordered to remain together during breaks and meals in 

the above-referenced case during trial and deliberations. The deputy-in-charge or courtroom 

deputy is authorized to purchase meals for sequestered eight (8) jurors until a verdict is rendered 

to this Court. 

So Ordered this

Dec 18, 2024

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 302 Filed 12/19/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:

21587
Order entered June 2, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 15 - 00102 - CV ESTATE OF FREDERIC B . ASCHE, JR., DECEAS ED On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR - 11 - 3533 - 2



### O RDER We GRANT the May 29, 2015 motion of Joie Rivera, Official Court Reporter for Probate Court No. 2, for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. The reporter’s record shall be filed by JULY 1, 2015
. /s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

SERGIO FLORES §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv261

UNKNOWN DEFENDANT §

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Sergio Flores, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary located in Beaumont,

Texas, proceeding pro se, brought this civil rights lawsuit. 

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 this action without prejudice. 

The Court has 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. A copy of the Report and Recommendation was mailed to Plaintiff at the address

provided to the Court. The copy of the Report mailed to Plaintiff was returned to the Court as

undeliverable. Plaintiff, however, has failed to provide the Court with a new address at which

he may be contacted. As of this date, no objections to the Report and Recommendation of United

States Magistrate Judge have been filed.

O R D E R

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

correct and the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. A separate

Case 1:23-cv-00261-MJT-CLS Document 7 Filed 12/06/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 17
Final Judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s

recommendations.

2

Case 1:23-cv-00261-MJT-CLS Document 7 Filed 12/06/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 18
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             695
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,732
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,834)
<INVENTORY>                                        198
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,542
<PP&E>                                             210
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,735
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,374
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            35
<OTHER-SE>                                       (842)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,735
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,110
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,869
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   723
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 172
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (654)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        19
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (673)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (673)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)
        

</TABLE>
William Randall CARNEY, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 17-8733.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             559
<SECURITIES>                                       253
<RECEIVABLES>                                      676
<ALLOWANCES>                                        20
<INVENTORY>                                        262
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,090
<PP&E>                                           6,208
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,668
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,883
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              603
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                          92
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,512
<SALES>                                          9,881
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,881
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,827
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   181
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     6
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 270
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    872
<INCOME-TAX>                                       336
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                536
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       536
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.15
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7416
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANDRE KEBE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:97-cr-00357-DKC; 8:01-cv-02157-DKC) Submitted: February 5, 2007 Decided: February 26, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre Kebe, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Andre Kebe seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Kebe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED