alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC CO., LTD; 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-CV-00285-JRG-RSP

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

Notice is hereby given that Iman Lordgooei enters an appearance in this matter as 

additional counsel on behalf of Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics 

Company, Ltd.

Iman Lordgooei may receive all communications from the Court and from other parties at

the following:

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

50 California Street, 22nd Floor

San Francisco, California 94111

Tel: (415) 875-6600

Fax: (415) 875-6700

 imanlordgooei@quinnemanuel.com

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 22 Filed 10/09/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 267
DATED: October 9, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

By /s/ Iman Lordgooei

Iman Lordgooei 

imanlordgooei@quinnemanuel.com

California Bar No. 251320 

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & 

SULLIVAN, LLP 

50 California Street, 22nd Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 875-6600 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 22 Filed 10/09/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 268
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or delivered 

electronically via U.S. District Court [LIVE]- Document Filing System, to all counsel of record, 

on this 9th day of October, 2023.

/s/ Iman Lordgooei

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 22 Filed 10/09/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 269
Jason PIERCE, petitioner, v. GEORGIA.

No. 18-6562.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
SOUTH CAROLINA, petitioner, v. Lamont Antonio SAMUEL.

No. 18-238.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied.
Exhibit 21
 List of Subsidiaries of Olympic Steel, Inc.
 Name of Subsidiary
    
    State of Organization
    
    % OwnershipOlympic Steel Lafayette, Inc.
    
    Ohio
    
    100%Olympic Steel Minneapolis, Inc.
    
    Minnesota
    
    100%Olympic Steel Iowa, Inc.
    
    Iowa
    
    100% (a)Oly Steel NC, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    100%Tinsley Group  PS&W, Inc.
    
    North Carolina
    
    100% (b)
 
 (a)
    
    Owned 100% by Olympic Steel Minneapolis, Inc.(b)
    
    Owned 100% by Oly Steel NC, Inc. 64
Murad H. BEYAH, petitioner, v. NEW JERSEY.

No. 18-5984.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

*355Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division denied.
Darrell BROWN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6795.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 12/24/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      567,799
COMMITMENTS
  75,288   50,135  158,599  290,007  317,243  523,894  525,976   43,905   41,823

CHANGES FROM 12/18/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -23,696)
  -3,643    3,362  -12,547  -31,600  -39,458  -47,790  -48,643   24,094   24,947

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    13.3      8.8     27.9     51.1     55.9     92.3     92.6      7.7      7.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      141)
      32       34       51       65       63      127      122
```

----

Updated December 28, 2012
**EXHIBIT 31.02**

 

**RULE13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Michael L. Pungello, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of ML Principal ProtectionL.P.;

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

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

 

*a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;*

* *

*b) Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and*

* *

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

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

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date: March 31, 2006

 
| By                                           | /s/ MICHAEL L. PUNGELLO |   |
|----------------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
| Michael L. Pungello                          |
| Vice President, Chief Financial Officer      |
| and Treasurer                                |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                      DM MANAGEMENT COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY

                                  FORM 10-Q
                     FOR QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1996


                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                          --------------------------------
                                                                          SEPTEMBER 28,      SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                                              1996               1995
                                                                          -------------      -------------
Primary
-------
<S>                                                                         <C>                <C>
Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding during the period ...   4,311,779          4,261,553
                                                                                             
Adjustments:                                                                                 
   Assumed exercise of options ..........................................     418,624            304,693
                                                                            ---------          ---------
                                                                                             
                                                                            4,730,403          4,566,246
                                                                            =========          =========
<CAPTION> 
                                                                                THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                          ---------------------------------
                                                                          SEPTEMBER 28,       SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                                              1996                1995
                                                                          ------------        -------------
Fully Diluted
-------------
<S>                                                                         <C>                 <C>
Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding during the period ...   4,311,779           4,261,553
    
Adjustments:    
   Assumed exercise of options ..........................................     418,680             304,693
                                                                            ---------           ---------
                                                                            4,730,459           4,566,246
                                                                            =========           =========
</TABLE>
Michael DePIETRO, petitioner, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., et al.

No. 18-6700.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6778
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRANCISCO ALBERTO LOZANO-TORRES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (6:00-cr-00262) Submitted: October 24, 2007 Decided: November 14, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francisco Alberto Lozano-Torres, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Francisco Alberto Lozano-Torres seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Lozano-Torres 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 

ANTONIO SORIA-BELTRAN,

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NUMBER 4:23-CR-00142-SDJ

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS

OF FACT AND RECOMMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

The Court referred this matter to the United States Magistrate Judge for administration of 

a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The Magistrate Judge conducted a 

hearing in the form and manner prescribed by Rule 11 and issued Findings of Fact and 

Recommendation on Guilty Plea. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court accept

Defendant’s guilty plea and adjudge Defendant guilty on Count One of the Indictment.

The parties have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings.

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation, the Court hereby 

ADOPTS the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of the United States 

Magistrate Judge and accepts Defendant’s guilty plea. It is further ORDERED that, in accordance 

with the Defendant’s guilty plea and the Magistrate Judge’s findings, Defendant is adjudged guilty 

as to Count One of the Indictment, charging a violation of Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) – Illegal 

Reentry after Removal.

Case 4:23-cr-00142-SDJ-KPJ Document 21 Filed 10/09/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 35
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed October 12, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1068

Lower Tribunal No. 09-32975

________________

Adrian Duncan,

Appellant,

vs.

Mia Franklin,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Christina 

Marie DiRaimondo, Judge.

Bickman Law PLLC, and Joshua Bickman, for appellant.

Law Office of Pamela M. Gordon, P.A., and Pamela M. Gordon 

(Hollywood), for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY, and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Appellant Adrian Maurice Duncan appeals an order denying his 

exceptions to the General Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations 

wherein the trial court ratified, approved, and adopted the Report and 

Recommendation of the General Magistrate dated November 17, 2020,

awarding retroactive child support. 

“The standard of review for a child support award is abuse of 

discretion.” McKenna v. McKenna, 31 So. 3d 890, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). 

A trial court’s determination of a party’s income for purposes of establishing

support obligations must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. 

See Sallaberry v. Sallaberry, 27 So. 3d 234, 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). The 

trial court’s decision to impute income is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

See Cura v. Cura, 299 So. 3d 1127, 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). “Awards of 

retroactive child support are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Williams 

v. Gonzalez, 294 So. 3d 941, 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (quoting Henry v. 

Henry, 191 So. 3d 995, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)).

Finding there is competent, substantial evidence to support the 

Magistrate’s findings, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 23



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Amendment  No. 2 to Form S-3
Registration  Statement No. 33-90818 and in Form S-8 Registration  Statement No.
33-80650 of The Taubman  Realty Group Limited  Partnership  of our reports dated
February 17, 1997, on the  consolidated  financial  statements and the financial
statement  schedules of The Taubman  Realty Group  Limited  Partnership  and the
combined  financial   statements  and  the  financial   statement  schedules  of
Unconsolidated  Joint Ventures of The Taubman  Realty Group Limited  Partnership
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Taubman Realty Group Limited
Partnership for the year ended December 31, 1996.7





Deloitte & Touche LLP
Detroit, Michigan
March 26, 1997
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2027

To require that candidates who receive campaign financing from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund agree not to participate in multicandidate forums that exclude candidates who have broad-based public

support.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 7, 1999

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

on House Administration

A BILL

To require that candidates who receive campaign financing

from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund agree

not to participate in multicandidate forums that exclude

candidates who have broad-based public support.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Open Debate Act of

5 1999’’.
2

•HR 2027 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT THAT CANDIDATES WHO RECEIVE

2 CAMPAIGN FINANCING FROM THE PRESI3 DENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND AGREE

4 NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN MULTICANDIDATE

5 FORUMS THAT EXCLUDE CANDIDATES WITH

6 BROAD-BASED PUBLIC SUPPORT.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to the requirements

8 under subtitle H of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,

9 in order to be eligible to receive payments from the Presi10 dential Election Campaign Fund, a candidate shall agree

11 in writing not to appear in any multicandidate forum with

12 respect to the election involved unless the following indi13 viduals are invited to participate in the multicandidate

14 forum:

15 (1) Each other eligible candidate under such

16 subtitle.

17 (2) Each individual who is qualified in at least

18 40 States for the ballot for the office involved.

19 (b) ENFORCEMENT.—If the Federal Election Com20 mission determines that a candidate—

21 (1) has received payments from the Presidential

22 Election Campaign Fund; and

23 (2) has violated the agreement referred to in

24 subsection (a);

25 the candidate shall pay to the Treasury an amount equal

26 to the amount of the payments so made.
3

•HR 2027 IH

1 (c) DEFINITION.—As used in this Act, the term

2 ‘‘multicandidate forum’’ means a meeting—

3 (1) consisting of a moderated reciprocal discus4 sion of issues among candidates for the same office;

5 and

6 (2) to which any other person has access in per7 son or through an electronic medium.

Æ
Exhibit
      32.4








Certification
      of Chief Accounting 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 quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 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 4, 2005




/s/
      Ray
      Sienko





_________________


Ray
      Sienko


Chief
      Accounting Officer








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Century Casinos, Inc. and will be retained by Century Casinos, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
Joseph COONEY, petitioner, v. BARRY SCHOOL OF LAW, aka Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law.

No. 17-1690.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Eugene Martin LaVERGNE, et al., appellants, v. UNITES STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, et al.

No. 18-290.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Adan SANDOVAL DOMINGUEZ, petitioner, v. M. Eliot SPEARMAN, Warden.

No. 18-6329.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST 

COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE 

REGISTERED HOLDERS OF MORGAN 

STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I INC. TRUST 

2007-HE7 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH 

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-HE7

 Plaintiff,

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00127

§

SEAN ANDRE SIMON, TONYA JORESSA 

SIMON

§

§

§

Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Dkt.15] 

The District Court referred Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees [Dkt. 13] to the 

Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration and disposition. 

On December 28, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 15]

in which she recommended granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ 

Fees by awarding $8,085.44 in attorneys’ fees. To date, the parties have not filed objections to 

the report. 

The Court received and considered the Report and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge 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 [Dkt. 

15] is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys' Fees [Dkt. 13] is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART awarding attorneys’ fees of $8,085.44. Pursuant to the Order Adopting the 

Case 1:23-cv-00127-MJT Document 16 Filed 01/16/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 155
2

Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, attorneys’ fees are not 

awarded as a personal judgement but as a further obligation of the debt.

Case 1:23-cv-00127-MJT Document 16 Filed 01/16/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 156
Craig ALEXANDER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6063.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

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