alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

JASON SHIM, Individually 

and On Behalf of All Others 

Similarly Situated

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO. 4:23-CV-549-SDJ

LEAD CASE

KEITH LINK, Individually 

and On Behalf of All Others 

Similarly Situated

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO. 4:23-CV-603-SDJ

ROBERT CODY, Individually 

and On Behalf of All Others 

Similarly Situated 

v.

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO. 4:23-CV-713-SDJ

DZS INC., ET AL. §

ORDER 

Before the Court are three Motions to Consolidate, (Dkts. #10, 12, 14), filed in 

Cause No. 4:23-CV-549 (the “Lead Case”), seeking in part the consolidation of the 

above captioned cases. In order to avoid unnecessary cost or delay and because Link 

(No. 4:23-CV-603) and Cody (No. 4:23-CV-713) will share common questions of law or 

fact with the Lead Case, the aforementioned motions are GRANTED in part. 

Accordingly, Link and Cody are hereby ORDERED to be CONSOLIDATED for all 

purposes with the LEAD CASE.

All parties are instructed to file any future filings in the Lead Case. The Court 

will enter one docket control order, one protective order, and one discovery order that 

will govern the entire consolidated case. The local rules’ page limitations for motions 

will apply to the consolidated case. To further promote judicial economy and to 

conserve the parties’ resources, the Court encourages the parties to file a notice with 

Case 4:23-cv-00549-SDJ Document 22 Filed 09/12/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 560
2

the Court in the event that other related cases are filed on the Court’s docket that 

may also be appropriate for consolidation with this case. 

The Clerk is instructed to add the consolidated plaintiffs 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 have appeared pro hac vice in Link or 

Cody 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 Link or Cody 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 reference either 

Link or Cody, as appropriate. 

Case 4:23-cv-00549-SDJ Document 22 Filed 09/12/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 561
Lewis Y. LIU, petitioner, v. Paul RYAN, et al.

No. 18-409.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 221 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 221

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to permit certain youth 
              to perform certain work with wood products.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 221

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to permit certain youth 
              to perform certain work with wood products.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION.

    Section 13(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
213(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(7)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), in the administration and 
enforcement of the child labor provisions of this Act, it shall not be 
considered oppressive child labor for an individual who--
            ``(i) is at least 14 but under the age of 18, and
            ``(ii) is a member of a religious sect or division thereof 
        whose established teachings do not permit formal education 
        beyond the eighth grade,
to be employed inside or outside places of business where machinery is 
used to process wood products.
    ``(B) The employment of an individual under subparagraph (A) shall 
be permitted--
            ``(i) if the individual is supervised by an adult relative 
        of the individual or is supervised by an adult member of the 
        same religious sect or division as the individual;
            ``(ii) if the individual does not operate or assist in the 
        operation of power-driven woodworking machines;
            ``(iii) if the individual is protected from wood particles 
        or other flying debris within the workplace by a barrier 
        appropriate to the potential hazard of such wood particles or 
        flying debris or by maintaining a sufficient distance from 
        machinery in operation; and
            ``(iv) if the individual is required to use personal 
        protective equipment to prevent exposure to excessive levels of 
        noise and saw dust.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 2, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 05/08/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      326,785
COMMITMENTS
  74,427  111,036   41,220  186,530  148,740  302,177  300,996   24,608   25,789

CHANGES FROM 05/01/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      7,992)
 -11,834   -3,170    3,389   13,179    3,248    4,734    3,467    3,258    4,525

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    22.8     34.0     12.6     57.1     45.5     92.5     92.1      7.5      7.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      131)
      28       56       56       30       38       97      120
```

----

Updated May 11, 2012
Rashaud JONES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-430.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Ventura H

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 10, 2014

No. 04-13-00887-CV

Aurora A. RODRIGUEZ, Israel Rodriguez, Edelmiro Romeo Alvarez, Silverio Simon Alvarez, 

Anita Irma Guerra, Emilio Roman Alvarez, Adrian Alvarez, Teodoro Alvarez, Jr., and Primitivo 

Alvarez,

Appellants

v.

Ventura HERNANDEZ,

Appellee

From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-11-423

Honorable Jose Luis Garza, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The appellee’s brief was originally due to be filed on June 9, 2014. The appellee’s first 

motion for extension of time was granted, extending the deadline for filing the brief to July 9, 

2014. On July 7, 2014, the appellee filed a motion requesting an additional extension of time to 

file the brief. Although the motion did not contain a specific extension request, the appellee’s 

attorney verbally informed the court that he was requesting an additional thirty day extension, for 

a total extension of sixty days. The motion is GRANTED. THIS IS THE FINAL 

EXTENSION OF TIME THAT THE APPELLEE WILL BE GRANTED. The appellee’s 

brief must be filed by August 8, 2014, or the case will be set “at issue” and will be submitted

without the appellee’s brief.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of July, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 96-60287 Summary Calendar

_____________________

DANIEL EPHRON, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus REGINALD JACKSON, Sheriff, individually and in his official capacity; ROBERT HAWKINS, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 5:95:CV-19-BrN

_________________________________________________________________ February 4, 1997 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The appellants seek relief from rulings of the district court
rel ative to their defenses of qualified and sovereign immunity.

Th e appeal is DISMISSED for lack of an appealable order. S ee
Johnson v. Jones , 115 S.Ct. 2151, 2154-56 (1995); Schultea v. Wood , 47 F.3d 1427, 1433-34 (5th Cir. 1995)(en banc).

IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that the appellee’s request for
sanctions against the appellants’ counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, is DENIED.-2- SANCTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

JON WILLIAMS STUCKEY §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-122 

SIMMON PRINCE, ET AL. §

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Jon Williams Stuckey, a prisoner confined at the Polk County Jail, proceeding pro

se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for

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

Discussion

On September 12, 2023, Plaintiff was ordered to pay the $402.00 filing fee or submit an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. #5.) Plaintiff was given twenty days to complywith

the court order. As of this date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or requested leave to proceed in

forma pauperis.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action sua

sponte for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031

(5th Cir. 1998). “The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays

in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” 

Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir.

1997).

Case 9:23-cv-00122-MAC-CLS Document 6 Filed 10/17/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 6
By choosing not to comply with the court order, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case

diligently. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution.

Recommendation

This action should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Objections

Within fourteen days after receipt 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

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R.

CIV. P. 72. 

2

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 17th day of October, 2023.

Case 9:23-cv-00122-MAC-CLS Document 6 Filed 10/17/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 7
```
 
 
IN DELIVERY MONTH EUA - GREEN EXCHANGE                               Code-006GEC
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 07/03/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1000 EUA)                              OPEN INTEREST:       83,274
COMMITMENTS
  14,448      277    3,602   65,223   79,395   83,273   83,274        1        0

CHANGES FROM 06/26/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      6,796)
    -310        0   -2,100    9,205    8,897    6,795    6,797        1       -1

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    17.3      0.3      4.3     78.3     95.3    100.0    100.0      0.0      0.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       20)
       4        2        4        9       13       14       18
```

----

Updated July 3, 2012
Robert Demetrius BARNES, petitioner, v. B. MASTERS, Warden.

No. 18-6184.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-1996
       
<S>                              <C>
<CASH>                           664
<SECURITIES>                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                     0
<INVENTORY>                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 664
<PP&E>                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            35,586
<BONDS>                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            0
<PREFERRED>                      0
<COMMON>                         3
<OTHER-SE>                      (34,925)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     664
<SALES>                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 0
<CGS>                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 7,560
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (7,560)
<INCOME-TAX>                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (7,560)
<DISCONTINUED>                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                  0
<CHANGES>                        0
<NET-INCOME>                    (7,560)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                    0
        


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 

JORDAN TERRY GARCIA,

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NUMBER 4:23-CR-00180-SDJ

ORDER ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY

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 

Information.

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

The Court hereby ADOPTS the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea 

of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court also accepts Defendant’s plea but defers 

acceptance of the plea agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

In accordance with Defendant’s guilty plea, the Court finds Defendant Jordan Terry 

Garcia GUILTY of Count One of the Information, charging a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 

371, 922(a)(6) - Conspiracy to Acquire a Firearm from a Licensed Dealer by False or 

Fictitious Statement.

Case 4:23-cr-00180-SDJ-KPJ Document 14 Filed 10/09/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 40
Case 4:23-cr-00180-SDJ-KPJ Document 14 Filed 10/09/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 41
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 LUFKIN DIVISION

NICKOLAS WOLFFORD §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-95

NELANJ YLLI, ET AL. §

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Nickolas Wolfford, a prisoner confined at the Polunsky Unit of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for

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

Discussion

On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff moved to dismiss this action. (Doc. #6.) Pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), Plaintiff is entitled to dismiss the action voluntarily prior to the service

of an answer or motion for summary judgment by any adverse parties. Because the defendants have

not served a responsive pleading, Plaintiff’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss should be granted.

Recommendation

Plaintiff’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss should be granted, and the action should be

dismissed without prejudice.

Case 9:23-cv-00095-MAC-CLS Document 7 Filed 07/10/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 18
Objections

Within fourteen days after receipt 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

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R.

CIV. P. 72. 

2

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 10th day of July, 2023.

Case 9:23-cv-00095-MAC-CLS Document 7 Filed 07/10/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 19
# Remembering the 1,000,000 Americans Lost to COVID-19

Today, we mark a tragic milestone: one million American lives lost to COVID-19. One million empty chairs around the dinner table. Each an irreplaceable loss. Each leaving behind a family, a community, and a Nation forever changed because of this pandemic. Jill and I pray for each of them.

As a Nation, we must not grow numb to such sorrow. To heal, we must remember. We must remain vigilant against this pandemic and do everything we can to save as many lives as possible. In remembrance, let us draw strength from each other as fellow Americans. For while we have been humbled, we never give up. We can and will do this together as the United States of America.

In memory of the one million American lives lost to COVID-19 and their loved ones left behind, I hereby order, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, that the flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White House and on all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions until sunset May 16, 2022. I also direct that the flag shall be flown at half-staff for the same period at all United States embassies, legations, consular offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval vessels and stations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twelfth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-two, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-sixth.

[FR Doc. 2022-10750

Billing code 3395-F2-P
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS



I, Bradley R. Meredith., certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Pointe Financial Corporation;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially 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 financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely 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 a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: April 29, 2005

By: /s/ BRADLEYR. MEREDITH

Bradley R. Meredith, Senior Vice President

and Chief Financial Officer