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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

ARMANDO COOK §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv94

BRYAN DOBBS, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Felipe Molina-Uribe, an inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Complex in

Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, brought the above-styled lawsuit.

The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge

for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Discussion

On March 9, 2023, plaintiff was ordered to submit either the full filing fee, $402.00, or an

application to proceed in forma pauperis and a statement certified by an authorized prison official

showing the average balance in and deposits into plaintiff’s inmate trust account for the preceding

six months. Plaintiff’s compliance was due on or before the expiration of twenty (20) days from the

date of the order. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute

or for failure to comply with any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). 

“This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court’s inherent power to control its docket and

prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., 756 F.2d

399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962). 

As of this date, plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor submitted an application to proceed

in forma pauperis as ordered. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to diligently prosecute this action. 

Therefore, this case should be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Case 1:23-cv-00094-MJT-ZJH Document 4 Filed 04/10/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 8
Recommendation

This action should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Objections

Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s report, any

party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an

aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal

conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United

Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 10th day of April, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00094-MJT-ZJH Document 4 Filed 04/10/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 9
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                                 NORTHWEST AIRLINES CORPORATION

                                                        NORTHWEST AIRLINES
                                                            CORPORATION
                                                           Delaware Corp.


                                                              NWA INC.
                                                           Delaware Corp.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>             <C>                <C>                 <C>                 <C>                <C>                  <C>
 NORTHWEST         NORTHWEST          MLT INC.             NORTHWEST        NWA AIRCRAFT      NORTHWEST CAPITAL    NORTHWEST PARS
AIRCRAFT INC.      AEROSPACE       Minnesota Corp.       AIRLINES, INC.     FINANCE, INC.       FUNDING CORP.      HOLDINGS, INC.
Delaware Corp.   TRAINING CORP.                          Minnesota Corp.    Delaware Corp.     Delaware Corp.      Delaware Corp.
                 Delaware Corp.
 
</TABLE>

                                                            99% LIMITED PARTNER


                                     WINGS FINANCE       WIN-WIN L.P.
                                        COMPANY        Delaware Limited
                                    Japanese Corp.       Partnership


* Each subsidiary is 100% wholly-owned unless otherwise noted.
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 03/06/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      131,748
COMMITMENTS
  35,123   18,280   17,490   63,347   71,621  115,960  107,391   15,788   24,357

CHANGES FROM 02/28/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -4,171)
    -397   -3,511     -537   -2,257     -405   -3,192   -4,453     -979      282

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    26.7     13.9     13.3     48.1     54.4     88.0     81.5     12.0     18.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      156)
      41       34       32       52       64      111      116
```

----

Updated March 9, 2012
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of
Principal Financial OfficerPursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350As
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Stephen T. Wills, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Palatin Technologies, Inc., hereby certify, to my
knowledge, that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 of
Palatin Technologies, Inc. (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Palatin Technologies, Inc.

Dated: May 13, 2008

|                                                                                                    | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/ Stephen T. Wills                                                                                | 
|Stephen T. Wills, Executive Vice President andChief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |
10248262 v1 (74055.00042.000)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

TERRENCE D. BECTON 

Plaintiff,

§

§

§

§

§

vs. §

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4-23-CV-393-ALM

§

C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC.; 

C.H. ROBINSON COMPANY INC., 

LEADER EXPRESS LLC;

NP EXPRESS, LLC and 

LOUIS A. ZEISLER

§

§

§

§

§

§

Jury Demand

Defendants.

§

§

§

_____________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANTS C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC.’S

AND C.H. ROBINSON COMPANY, INC.’S

NOTICE OF SERVING INITIAL DISCLOSURE

______________________________________________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE AMOS L. MAZZANT, III:

Pursuant to the Court’s Order Governing Proceedings, the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and the Local Rules of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of

Texas, I certify that a copy of Defendants C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. and C.H. 

Robinson Company, Inc.’s Initial Disclosure was served upon Counsel of Record on this 

28th day of July, 2023.

Case 4:23-cv-00393-ALM Document 27 Filed 07/28/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 157
10248262 v1 (74055.00042.000)

2

Respectfully submitted,

KANE RUSSELL COLEMAN LOGAN PC

By: /s/ Roland G. Hamilton

Roland G. Hamilton

ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE

State Bar No. 24002217

5151 San Felipe Street, Suite 800

Houston, Texas 77056

Telephone: (713) 425-7400

Telecopier: (713) 425-7700

E-mail: rhamilton@krcl.com

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS C.H. ROBINSON 

COMPANY INC. AND C.H. ROBINSON 

WORLDWIDE, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on this the 28th day of July, 2023, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing has been forwarded to all counsel of record via electronic delivery, facsimile and/or 

U.S. Mail. 

Bryan M. Meredith,

MEREDITH LAW FIRM, PLLC

1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, Suite 450

Memphis, TN 38120

James C. Erdle, Jr.

Joseph D. Zopolsky

Aaron Kidder

GLAST, PHILLIPS & MURRAY,

P.C.

14801 Quorum Drive, Suite 500

Dallas, Texas 75254-1449

Matthew E. Wright 

The Law Firm For Truck Safety, LLP

840 Crescent Centre Drive, Suite 310

Franklin, TN 37067

/s/ Roland G. Hamilton

Roland G. Hamilton 

Case 4:23-cv-00393-ALM Document 27 Filed 07/28/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 158
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 10/16/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      656,448
COMMITMENTS
  67,638   54,400  193,812  372,570  390,028  634,019  638,240   22,428   18,208

CHANGES FROM 10/09/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     10,047)
  -6,534   -2,289    5,044     -915    4,391   -2,405    7,146   12,452    2,901

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    10.3      8.3     29.5     56.8     59.4     96.6     97.2      3.4      2.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      148)
      35       39       58       69       66      139      130
```

----

Updated June 29, 2007
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 04/17/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      153,268
COMMITMENTS
  36,475   33,069   21,478   78,264   70,979  136,218  125,526   17,050   27,742

CHANGES FROM 04/10/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        855)
    -799    1,283   -1,017    4,224    2,328    2,408    2,594   -1,553   -1,739

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    23.8     21.6     14.0     51.1     46.3     88.9     81.9     11.1     18.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      175)
      40       49       43       66       64      133      137
```

----

Updated April 20, 2012
Rushane Dwayne KENNEDY, petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General.

No. 18-9230.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
William L. WHIPPLE, petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

No. 18-6419.

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.
EXHIBIT (10)(B)



 EXHIBIT 10(b) 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 







 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Experts” in the Prospectus and to the use of our reports: (1) dated March 29,
2012, with respect to the financial statements of Transamerica Advisors Life Insurance Company, and (2) dated April 23, 2012, with respect to the financial statements of Merrill Lynch Life Variable Annuity Separate Account A in Post-Effective
Amendment No. 16 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4, No. 333-118362) under the Securities Act of 1933, and the related Prospectus of Merrill Lynch Investor Choice Annuity (Investor Series). 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 
 Des Moines, Iowa 
 April 23, 2012
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, 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

September 11, 2009 

l0831 

Order 

 

September 11, 2009 

138207 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138207 

 COA: 286733 

Wayne CC: 06-008243-01 

DOUGLAS WILLIAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 21, 2008 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**AFFINITY GROUP, INC.**

**STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

I,Michael A. Schneider, President and Chief Executive Officer of Affinity Group,Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify as follows:

1.                                       This statement is provided pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 in connection with the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 (the “Periodic Report”);

2.                                       The Periodic Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

3.                                       The information contained in the PeriodicReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company as of dates and for the periods indicatedtherein.
| Date: November 3, 2006 |                                         |
|------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                   | /s/ Michael A. Schneider                     |
|                   |  Michael A.  Schneider                  |
|                   |                                         |
|                   |  President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or suchother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thewritten statement as required by Section 906, has been provided to AffinityGroup, Inc. and will be retained by Affinity Group, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

34

----
Hernando Javier VERGARA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8639.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
DELANO FARMS COMPANY, et al., petitioners, v. CALIFORNIA TABLE GRAPE COMMISSION.

No. 18-300.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
AO 120 (Rev. 08/10) 

TO: Mail Stop 8

Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

REPORT ON THE

FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN

ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR

TRADEMARK

In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been

filed in the U.S. District Court on the following

G Trademarks or G Patents. ( G the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):

DOCKET NO. DATE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:

DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY

G Amendment G Answer G Cross Bill G Other Pleading

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:

DECISION/JUDGEMENT

CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERK DATE

Copy 1—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director

Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy

Eastern District of Texas

✔

2:23-cv-350 7/28/2023 Eastern District of Texas

Patent Armory Inc. Sony Corporation

7,130,430 10/31/2006 Patent Armory Inc.

Patent Armory Inc.

Patent Armory Inc.

Patent Armory Inc.

Patent Armory Inc.

Case 2:23-cv-00350-JRG Document 4 Filed 07/28/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 36
Masoumeh MOHAJER, petitioner, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.

No. 17-8350.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 24, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 24a0374n.06
Nos. 2 0

- 3318 / 4039 / 24

- 3108 / 3706

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
MARIO TAPIA BRAVO , Petitioner ,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General , Respondent

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETITION S FOR REVIEW FROM THE UNITED STATES BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
ORDER

Before : BATCHELDER, WHITE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges. Mario Tapia Bravo petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. This case has been referred to a panel of the court that, upon examination, unanimously agrees th at oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a). For the reasons below, we vacate in part and remand his petition for review.
I. During the course of his removal proceedings, Bravo’s army

- enlisted daughter (and a naturalized citizen) filed an I

- 130 visa petition on his behalf, and Bravo filed the supplementary documents related thereto. Bravo states, and the government does not contest, that his I

- 130 visa petition has since been approved, but it was not considered below. An approved I

- 130 visa petition satisfies the requirement that an immigrant visa be immediately available when the alien files his or her application , making the alien eligible forNos. 20

- 3318/4039/24

- 3108/3706 , Tapia Bravo v. Garland

adjustment of status

. INS v. Miranda , 459 U.S. 14, 15 (1982) (per curiam); 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). We are mindful of the jurisdictional balance that we must strike in choosing whether to review a motion to reopen. Hernandez

- Perez v. Whitaker , 911 F.3d 305, 315 (6th Cir. 2018) . But we also recognize the “safety valve” role that this court holds, ensuring “that the BIA lives by its rules and at least considers new information.” Id. (citing Pilica v. Ashcroft , 388 F.3d 941, 948 (6th Cir. 2004). Therefore, this matter is remanded with instructions to consider Bravo’s I

- 130 visa petition and its effect on his removal proceedings. Moreover, we are not convinced by the government’s position that Bravo has forfeited claims related to his approved I

- 130 visa petition because of a supposed failure to exhaust his claims. “Under the plain language of [8 U.S.C.] § 1252(d)(1), a noncitizen must exhaust all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.” Santos

- Zacaria v. Garland , 598 U.S. 411, 42 4 (2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, discretionary remedies such as “[c]ancellation of removal, voluntary departure , and adjustment of status ” are not available as of right. Id. at 426. So, the exhaustion requirement of § 1252(d)(1) does not apply here. “[B]ecause § 1251(d)(1) requires only exhaustion of remedies available as of right, . . . a noncitizen need not exhaust discretionary remedies.” Id. at 425 (cleaned up).
II. For the reasons explained, we vacate in part and remand Bravo’s petition for review for further proceedings consistent with this order to consider the effect of Bravo’s I

- 130 visa petition on his removal proceedings

. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

__________________________________ Kelly L. Stephens, Clerk
NO. 07-07 -013 7-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A SEPTEM BER25, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ CAPIT OL INDEMNIT Y CORPORAT ION, APP ELL ANT V. RO NZAN I I NC ., D/ B/A RO NP AR CO , AP PELLEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 96 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF T AR RA NT COU NT Y; TH NO . 96- 214309- 05; H ON ORABLE JEF F W ALKER , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ON M OT ION T O D ISM ISS Cap it al Indemni ty

C or porati on, appel lan t, has filed a mot ion to dis mis s t his appeal beca u s e i t h as reach ed a resolution of the pre sentcontroversy w ith Ronzani, Inc, appel lee s. N o dec is ion of thi s C our t hav ing been del iv er ed to date , w e g ra nt the mot ion
. Ac cordin g ly , t he appe al is di smi ss ed. T EX . R. A PP . P
. 4 2
. 1 ( a ) ( 1 )
. B e c a u s e the parti es have agreed th at ea ch sha ll b e r e s pon sible for their own appe llate cost s, costs of this2

a p p e a l shal l be bor ne by the par ty thati ncur re d the m. S ee T EX . R. A PP . P
. 4 2
. 1 (d ), 6.6. No moti on for re hear ing w il l be ent ertai ned and our mandate w il l is sue forthw it h.
Mackey K. Hancock Justice
Darrel VANNOY, Warden, petitioner, v. John David FLOYD.

No. 18-380.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.