alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                       <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1996               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-01-1996               JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1996               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      3,029,786                 3,029,786
<SECURITIES>                                        0                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               8,679,820                 8,679,820
<ALLOWANCES>                                  341,898                   341,898
<INVENTORY>                                   296,431                   296,431
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           13,011,242                13,011,242
<PP&E>                                     35,894,541                35,894,541
<DEPRECIATION>                              9,384,833                 9,384,833
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             42,145,860                42,145,860
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       4,304,297                 4,304,297
<BONDS>                                             0                         0
<COMMON>                                       45,562                    45,562
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0                         0
<PREFERRED>                                         0                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                 31,606,702                31,606,702
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               42,145,860                42,145,860
<SALES>                                    12,014,112                33,624,879
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           12,014,112                33,624,879
<CGS>                                       5,245,495                14,940,011 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               5,245,495                14,940,011 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            5,293,393                14,283,463
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            126,390                   124,216
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             1,348,834                 4,277,189
<INCOME-TAX>                                  317,354                 1,430,129
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         1,031,480                 2,847,060 
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0                         0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0                         0 
<CHANGES>                                           0                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                1,031,480                 2,847,060 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .23                       .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .23                       .63
        


</TABLE>
AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed March 27, 2019 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00081-CR 

MOLLY ORTIZ, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F16-30318-I 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Myers, and Justice Pedersen, III 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Appellant Molly Ortiz waived a jury trial and pleaded guilty to possession of 

methamphetamine in an amount less than one gram. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court 

deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on three years’ community supervision, and assessed 

a $1,500 fine. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, 

there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. 

App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel 

delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of her right to file a pro se 

response, but she did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. 
 –2– 

Crim. App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by 

counsel). 

 We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the 

appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support 

the appeal. 

 We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

180081F.U05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/ 

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

MOLLY ORTIZ, Appellant 

No. 05-18-00081-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 2, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F16-30318-I. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. 

Justices Myers and Pedersen, III 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered March 27, 2019.
Exhibit 32
 LODGENET INTERACTIVE CORPORATION
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of LodgeNet.
 th
 /s/ Scott C. PetersenScott C. PetersenChief Executive Officer/s/ Frank P. ElsenbastFrank P. ElsenbastChief Financial Officer Page 50
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 Receivables, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    100%Olympic Steel Receivables LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    100% (a)Olympic Steel Trading, Inc.
    
    Ohio
    
    100%Oly Steel Welding, Inc.
    
    Michigan
    
    100%Olympic Steel Iowa, Inc.
    
    Iowa
    
    100% (b)OLP LLC
    
    Michigan
    
    50%   (c)G.S.P., LLC
    
    Michigan
    
    100% (d)Oly Steel NC, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    100%Tinsley Group  PS&W, Inc.
    
    North Carolina
    
    100% (e)
 
 (a)
    
    Owned 100% by Olympic Steel, Inc. and Olympic Steel Receivables, Inc.(b)
    
    Owned 100% by Olympic Steel Minneapolis, Inc.(c)
    
    Owned 50% by Oly Steel Welding, Inc.(d)
    
    Owned 100% by Oly Steel Welding, Inc.(e)
    
    Owned 100% by Oly Steel NC, Inc. 60
Clifford D. WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 18-6708.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of appeals of Ohio, Butler County denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Fidelity Federal Bancorp Consolidated Balance Sheet as of 3/31/98 and
the Consolidated Income Statement for the nine months ended 3/31/98.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,509
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           5,897
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     10,472
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        166,249
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,611
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 197,436
<DEPOSITS>                                     146,672
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,447
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,586
<LONG-TERM>                                     33,346
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,127
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,258
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 197,436
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,287
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  520
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   527
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                13,334
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,909
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,133
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,292
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,092
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  79
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,727
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,113)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     (2,113)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,093)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.74
<LOANS-NON>                                        646
<LOANS-PAST>                                       106
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,781
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      279
<RECOVERIES>                                        17
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,611
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,611
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
United States District Court

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

BLAKE WATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, 

FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES et al., 

Defendants. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-00080

Judge Mazzant

ORDER

On June 7, 2023, the Court granted, in part, Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief Under 5 U.S.C. § 

705 or, Alternatively, for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. #37) which enjoined Defendants from 

enforcing the Final Rule against Plaintiff. The preliminary injunction was to remain in effect 

pending resolution of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Mock v. Garland. 

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider and Modify the Court’s 

June 7, 2023 Order (Dkt. #42). Previously, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for 

Expedited Consideration of the Motion to Reconsider and Modify the Court’s June 7, 2023 Order, 

or in the alternative, Expedited Consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

(Dkt. #44) finding that Plaintiff had established a likelihood of success on the merits on its claim 

under the Administrative Procedure Act and requesting additional briefing that focused on the 

irreparable-harm, balance-of-equities, and public-interest factors pertaining to Plaintiff’s motion 

for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. #7). Plaintiff filed its Supplemental Brief on August 21, 2023 

(Dkt. #45). Defendants filed their Response on August 28, 2023 (Dkt. #47). Plaintiff filed its Reply 

on August 30, 2023 (Dkt. #48). At that time, the Court began evaluating the merits of Plaintiff’s 

Case 4:23-cv-00080-ALM Document 53 Filed 10/11/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1022
2

motion to reconsider and modify. 

Less than one month later, on September 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Mandate 

Issuance (Dkt. #49) notifying the Court that the mandate issued in Mock v. Garland, 75 F.4th 563 

(5th Cir. 2023) that day. The following day, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Appeal (Dkt. #51). 

As the Fifth Circuit has made clear, a notice of appeal from an interlocutory order “divests 

the district court of jurisdiction over those aspects of the case on appeal.” Alice L. v. Dusek, 492 

F.3d 563, 564 (5th Cir. 2007). Consequently, this Court no longer has jurisdiction to consider the 

merits of Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration and modification of the injunctive relief previously 

granted.

Case 4:23-cv-00080-ALM Document 53 Filed 10/11/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1023
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CELLCO PARTERNSHIP D/B/A

VERIZON WIRELESS and 

VERIZON CORPORATE

SERVICES GROUP, INC.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP

 

ORDER

Before the Court is Headwater Research LLC’s Motion to Compel Production of Core 

Technical Documents by Verizon under patent P.R. 3-4(a). (Dkt. No. 74). Also before the Court 

is Verizon’s Motion to Strike Headwater’s Amended Infringement Contentions (Dkt. No. 72). 

On September 28, 2023, Headwater served Infringement Contentions on Verizon. Dkt. No. 

74 at 2. Verizon alleged that the Contentions were deficient in several ways. Dkt. No. 83 at 2.

While Headwater has amended the Contentions several times since then, Verizon has maintained 

that they remain deficient. Dkt. no. 72 at 1-4. Specifically, Verizon argues that Headwater’s 

Contentions do not identify which network-side components it accuses of infringement. Dkt. No. 

79 at 3. Verizon asserts that this is insufficient for them to search for, and produce, relevant 

documents. Id.

Verizon also argues that the dependent claims in the Contentions are deficient for failing 

to identify all elements in violation of Local Patent Rule 3-1. Dkt. No. 72 at 9. 

After allegedly failing to receive clarification from Headwater on these points, Verizon 

filed the current Motion to Strike. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/20/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

8316
2 

Conversely, Headwater alleges that their Infringement Contentions are sufficient for 

Verizon to produce necessary technical documentation and source code sufficient for Headwater 

to understand how Verizon’s network performs the network-side functionality, as accused in the 

Contentions. See generally Dkt. No. 76. Headwater alleges that, as of the present, Verizon has 

produced no source code and documentation relating to only device-side functionality (which is 

not alleged in the Contentions), thus they have failed to fulfill their obligations under Local Patent 

Rule 3-4(a). Dkt. No. 74 at 1-4. 

After consideration of both parties’ arguments in their briefs and at hearing, the Court 

hereby GRANTS the motion to compel. 

After consideration of both parties’ arguments in their briefs and at hearing, the Court 

hereby DENIES the motion to strike. 

The Court therefore ORDERS that Verizon to produce network-side technical 

documentation sufficient to understand how Verizon’s network performs the network-side 

functionality accused in the January 12 infringement contentions by December 4, 2024.

: 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/20/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

8317
Exhibit 32.2


Certification of Vice-Chairman and President


                            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,  2004 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:  July 28, 2004


/s/  Peter  Hoetzinger
________________
Peter  Hoetzinger  Vice-Chairman  and
President
- 1 - 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC § 

 § 

v. § CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP 

 § (Lead Case) 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a § 

VERIZON WIRELESS § 

 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC § 

 § 

v. § CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00380-JRG-RSP 

 § (Member Case) 

AT&T SERVICES INC., et al § 

 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC § 

 § 

v. § CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00381-JRG-RSP 

 § (Member Case) 

T-MOBILE USA, INC. § 

ORDER 

The above-captioned cases are hereby ORDERED to be CONSOLIDATED for all 

pretrial issues with the LEAD CASE, Case No. 2:23-cv-00382. All parties are instructed to file 

any future filings in the LEAD CASE. Individual cases remain active for trial. 

The Clerk is instructed to add the consolidated Defendants into the Lead Case and their 

corresponding Lead and Local Counsel only. Additional counsel may file a Notice of Appearance 

in the Lead Case if they wish to continue as counsel of record in the lead consolidated action. 

Counsel who has appeared pro hac vice in any member case may file a Notice of Appearance in 

the Lead Case without filing an additional application to appear pro hac vice in the Lead Case. 

Counsel who have not appeared in a member case at the point when it is consolidated into the Lead 

Case should file a Notice of Appearance only in the Lead Case, and such Notice should state the 

relevant member case. 

Case 2:23-cv-00381-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 11/02/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 76
- 2 - So Ordered this

Nov 2, 2023

Case 2:23-cv-00381-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 11/02/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 77
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 33-77302, 33-83606, 33-77304, 33-93324, 333-06847, 333-06845,
333-67771, 333-67773, and 333-67777) pertaining to the Inso Corporation 1993
Stock Purchase Plan, 1993 Stock Incentive Plan, 401(k) Plan, 1996 Non-employee
Director Plan and 1996 Stock Incentive Plan and in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-69259) of Inso Corporation and in the related Prospectus of
our report dated March 6, 2000, except for Note 16, as to which the date is
April 11, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Inso Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended January 31, 2000.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
April 19, 2000
Sheri Lee Pualani KAPAHU, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6122.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Susan KEVRA-SHINER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6576.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION • IN THE 

OF MARYLAND • COURT OF APPEALS 

200 Harry S. Truman Parkway, Suite 300 • OF MARYLAND 

Annapolis, Maryland 21401 

Petitioner 

• Misc. Docket AG 

v. • No. 4 

• September Term, 2016 

CLAIRE L. K. KENNEDY OGILVIE 

Respondent 

***************************************************************** 

ORDER 

This matter having come before the Court upon the filing of a Petition for Disciplinary or 

Remedial Action, with attached certified copy of a judgment of conviction entered against Claire 

L. K. Kennedy Ogilvie in the Circuit Court for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia; and it 

appearing that Claire L. K. Kennedy Ogilvie is admitted to the Bar of this Court; 

NOW, THEREFORE, it is this 18th day of may ,20l6. 

ORDERED by the Court of Appeals of Maryland that Respondent, Claire L. K. Kennedy 

Ogilvie, Respondent, is hereby suspended, effective immediately, from the further practice of 

aw in the State of Maryland, pending further order of this Court, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-

71(c); and it is further, 

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name Claire L.K. Kennedy 

• gilvie from the register of attorneys, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-760(e), shall certify that 

act to the Trustees of Client Protection Fund and the Clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State. 

/s/ Clayton Greene Jr. 

Senior Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

IRIS LYNNE GREENE,

Plaintiff,

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-157-MJT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING 

DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REVERSE AND REMAND

The Court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, 

United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to applicable law and orders of this 

Court. The Court received and considered the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge 

regarding Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand. [Dkt. 8.]

The court finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the United States 

Magistrate Judge are correct and the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. 

A Final Judgment will be entered separately, reversing and remanding this action to the 

Commissioner for rehearing and a de novo determination under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g).

Case 1:23-cv-00157-MJT-CLS Document 9 Filed 07/14/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1226
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129958 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

LOUIS GHAFFARI, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellant, Stephen J. Markman, v SC: 129958 Justices COA: 240025 

Wayne CC: 00-007319-NO

TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 

Defendant, Cross-Plaintiff,

Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,

and 

HOYT, BRUM & LINK, and GUIDELINE 

MECHANICAL, INC.,

 Defendants, Cross-DefendantsAppellees,

and 

R.W. MEAD & SONS, INC., and CONTI

ELECTRIC, INC.,

 Third-Party Defendants, 

and 

ACOUSTICAL CEILING & PARTITION 

COMPANY, 

 Defendant,
 and 

THE EDISON INSTITUTE, a/k/a HENRY FORD 

MUSEUM & GREENFIELD VILLAGE,

Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 20, 2005 

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. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

p0419 

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. 

April 26, 2006 

Clerk