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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

DILIPKUMAR A. PATEL §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-161

WARDEN, FCI BEAUMONT LOW §

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Petitioner, Dilipkumar A. Patel, an inmate currently confined at FCI Beaumont Low,

proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

TheCourt referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United StatesMagistrate

Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. 

The magistrate judge recommends dismissing dismissing this petition pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) [Dkt. 15]. 

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

Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, and pleadings. No objections

to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge have been filed to date.

ORDER

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

and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in accordance 

with the recommendations of the magistrate judge.

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 22nd day of February, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00161-MJT-CLS Document 16 Filed 02/22/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 220
Opinion issued June 27, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00965-CV

———————————

ALAN BATTLE, Appellant

V.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 92352-CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Alan Battle, has neither paid the required fees nor established 

indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1; see also TEX.

GOV’T CODE §§ 51.207, 51.941(a), 101.041; Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in 

Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District 
Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). After being notified that 

this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(c).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees. We 

dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly, and Goodman.
JOSHUA EDMOND WILLIAMS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 0579

_ ____________________________/

Opinion filed September 15, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Walton County

. Thomas R. Santurri , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public

Defender, Tallahassee

, for Appellant; Joshua Edmond Williams, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF SRK CONSULTING (US), Inc.

The undersigned, SRK Consulting (US)
Inc, (“SRK”) hereby states as follows:

Our firm prepared independent technical
reports, completed in 2009 and 2012 (the “Technical Reports”), concerning the Mt. Hamilton project currently owned
by Mt. Hamilton LLC of Wheat Ridge, Colorado (“MH-LLC”) a controlled subsidiary of Solitario Exploration & Royalty
Corp. (“Solitario”). Portions of the Technical Reports are contained, summarized or referenced in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Solitario (the “Form 10-K”) for the year ended December 31, 2011, to be filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission.

We hereby consent to the use of the information
concerning the Technical Reports (and to all references to our firm, including being named as experts) in the Form 10-K and to
the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-146277 on Form S-8 and in Registration Statement No. 333-172929
on Form S-3 of Solitario Exploration & Royalty Corp. of the information concerning the Technical Reports, including the references
to our firm included with such information, as set forth above in the Form 10-K.



|                          |  |                                            |  |                           
|------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------
|SRK Consulting (US), Inc.
|                          | 
|                          |  | Name:
        
        /s/ J.B. Pennington
|                          |  | Title:                                     |  | J. B. Pennington.         
|                          |  | Date:                                      |  | Practice Leader – SRK Reno
|                          |  |                                            |  | March 12, 2012            
|                          |  |                                            |  |
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 05/01/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      535,284
COMMITMENTS
  50,073   37,907  144,911  318,265  336,514  513,249  519,333   22,035   15,951

CHANGES FROM 04/24/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     27,709)
   2,093   -4,608   19,251    7,756   16,228   29,100   30,871   -1,391   -3,163

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     9.4      7.1     27.1     59.5     62.9     95.9     97.0      4.1      3.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      133)
      32       29       49       63       62      124      115
```

----

Updated May 4, 2012
EXHIBIT 10.7(d)

    

    

    SCHEDULE A TO EXHIBIT 10.7(a)

    

    

    The following individuals entered into Executive Deferred Compensation Plans with The Ohio Valley Bank Company identified below which are identical
        to the Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, dated December 18, 2012, between Jeffrey E. Smith and The Ohio Valley Bank Company filed herewith.

    

    

    	
            Name

          	 	
            Date of Agreement

          
	 	 	 
	
            Thomas E. Wiseman

          	 	
            December 18, 2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-11603

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DERRICK ADRIAN JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CV-257-1

Before HAYNES, DUNCAN, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Derrick Adrian Johnson has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Johnson has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief 

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 18, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-11603 Document: 00515040499 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2019
No. 18-11603

2

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

 Case: 18-11603 Document: 00515040499 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2019
**EXHIBIT 11**



|                                                                                                                                                          | Year Ended June 30,
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------
|                                                                                                                                                          | 2005               
|                                                                                                                                                          |                    
|Basic

Average shares outstanding                                                                                                                         | 2,225,493          
|Net income                                                                                                                                                | $104,259           
|Basic earnings per share                                                                                                                                  | $         0.05     
|                                                                                                                                                          |                    
|Diluted   Average shares outstanding                                                                                                                      | 2,225,493          
|                                                                                                                                                          |                    
|Net effect of dilutive stock options - based on the
    treasury stock method using the period end market
    price, if greater than average market price | 64,255             
|                                                                                                                                                          |                    
|Total                                                                                                                                                     | 2,289,748          
|Net income                                                                                                                                                | $104,259           
|Diluted earnings per share                                                                                                                                | $         0.05
Gregory D. KILPATRICK, petitioner, v. Harika KONDAVEETI.

No. 18-5818.

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.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

RILEY J. KUHN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CREDITFORHOMELOANS.COM, LLC, 

 Defendant.

 Case No. 4:23-cv-00308-ALM

AFFIDAVIT FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

I, Nathan C. Volheim, being duly sworn, states as follows:

1. I am the attorney for Plaintiff, Riley J. Kuhn, in the above-captioned case. 

2. On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff served the Summons and a copy of the Complaint filed in the 

above captioned matter upon Creditforhomeloans.com, LLC customer service manager,

Daniel L. [Dkt No. 5]. 

3. A responsive pleading to the Complaint was due on May 8, 2023. No response was 

tendered within the time allowed by law, nor has the Defendant sought additional time 

within which to respond.

4. To date, Defendant has not filed any responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Complaint, nor has 

he sought an extension. 

5. Defendant’s deadline to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Complaint has expired. 

6. To the best of my knowledge, Defendant is not an infant, not in the military, and not an 

incompetent person.

/s/ Nathan C. Volheim

Nathan C. Volheim, Esq. 

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 4:23-cv-00308-ALM Document 5-1 Filed 05/10/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 21
Exhibit 99.3


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 period  ended  March 31, 2003 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 to his knowledge:

     (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: May 9, 2003

/s/ Larry Hannappel
-----------------
Larry Hannappel
Chief Accounting Officer
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Eastern District of Texas

SemiLED Innovations LLC

4:23-cv-437

W.W. Grainger, Inc.

W.W. Grainger, Inc., 

100 Grainger Parkway, 

Lake Forest, Illinois, 60045

Serve Agent for Service of Process:

Corporation Service Corporation d/b/a/ CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company

211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620

Austin, TX 78701-3218

Cecil E. Key, Esq.; 

KEY IP LAW GROUP, PLLC 

1934 Old Gallows Road, Suite 350, 

Vienna, Virginia 22182

5/16/23

Case 4:23-cv-00437-ALM Document 4 Filed 05/16/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 176
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

4:23-cv-437 0.00 Print Save As... Reset

Case 4:23-cv-00437-ALM Document 4 Filed 05/16/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 177
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00321

- CR
Orlando Campos v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 156th District Court of Bee County , Texas Trial Cause No. B

- 16

- 2070

- 0

- CR

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this caus e on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. December 5 , 2019
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

V.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC.; 

Defendants.

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

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND STAY OF ALL DEADLINES

Plaintiff Cobblestone Wireless LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Samsung Electronics 

Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”), 

request extending this Court’s stay of the remaining case deadlines through October 8, 2024. The 

Court, having considered this request, is of the opinion that their request for extension should be 

granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the deadlines in these cases are hereby stayed through 

October 8, 2024. 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 68-1 Filed 09/09/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 5207
TERMINATION ENDORSEMENT

                                     to the

                       INTERESTS AND LIABILITIES AGREEMENT
                                (the "Agreement")

                                       of

                   CONVERIUM REINSURANCE (NORTH AMERICA) INC.
                          (the "Subscribing Reinsurer")

                               with respect to the

                       PROPERTY CATASTROPHE EXCESS OF LOSS
                              REINSURANCE CONTRACT
                                (the "Contract")

                                    issued to

                         PENN-AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY
                           PENN-STAR INSURANCE COMPANY
                         PENN-PATRIOT INSURANCE COMPANY
                              Hatboro, Pennsylvania
        and any additional company established or acquired by the Company
                                 (the "Company")


IT IS HEREBY AGREED that this Agreement, under which the Subscribing Reinsurer
has a 21.00% share in the interests and liabilities of the "Reinsurer" on the
First. Second, and Third Property Catastrophe Excess of Loss Reinsurance Layers,
shall be terminated at 12:01 a.m., Eastern Standard Time, October 1, 2004. The
Subscribing Reinsurer shall have no liability for losses occurring at or after
that time and date.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Subscribing Reinsurer by its duly authorized
representative has executed this Termination Endorsement as of the date
specified below:

Signed this ____12th_________day of ______October_________________, 2004.

PENN-AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY
PENN-STAR INSURANCE COMPANY
PENN-PATRIOT INSURANCE COMPANY

By____________________________


Signed this ____28th_________day of ______September_______________, 2004.

CONVERIUM INSURANCE (NORTH AMERICA) INC.



By _____________________________________

                                                                          Willis
Todd RASBERRY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5296.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

*592Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

CATRINA WITHERS MALDONADO §

§

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23cv525

§ CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:12cr4(1)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pro se Movant Catrina Withers Maldonado filed a motion, which was construed as a Motion

to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. #1). On June 9, 2023,

the United States Magistrate Judge ordered Movant to either (1) notify the Court she does not wish

to have her motion construed as a § 2255 motion, or (2) complete the § 2255 form fully and legibly,

and submit it to the Court should she wish to proceed with a § 2255 motion. In response, Movant

stated that she “do[es] not wish to have [her] motion construed as a § 2255 motion” (Dkt. #5 at 2). 

Accordingly, the Court construes her response as a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case.

Voluntary dismissals are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) that provides,

in pertinent part, the movant “may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of

dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” 

FED.R.CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Carter v. United States, 547 F.2d 258, 259 (5th Cir. 1977) (party has

absolute right to dismiss his legal action under Rule 41(a) prior to the filing of an answer or motion

for summary judgment). “Unless the notice ... states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.” 

FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(B). “The notice of dismissal is self-effectuating and terminates the case

in and of itself; no order or other action of the district court is required.” In re Amerijet Int’l, Inc.,

785 F.3d 967, 973 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Thus, once a movant has moved to dismiss under

Case 4:23-cv-00525-ALM-AGD Document 6 Filed 06/26/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 14
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), “the case [i]s effectively terminated,” and “[t]he court has no power or

discretion to deny plaintiffs’ right to dismiss or to attach any condition or burden to that right.” 

Bechuck v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 814 F.3d 287, 291 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Williams v. Ezell,

531 F.2d 1261, 1263-64 (5th Cir. 1976)).

In the present case, no answer or motion for summary judgment has been filed; thus,

Movant is entitled to the voluntary dismissal of the case without prejudice. Movant’s case was

dismissed the moment the notice was filed with the Clerk. Moreover, after a notice of voluntary

dismissal is filed, the district court loses jurisdiction over the case. In re Amerijet Int’l, Inc., 785

F.3d at 973.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Movant’s notice of dismissal (Dkt. #5) is self-effectuating

and terminates the case in and of itself, and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant 

to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). All motions by any party not previously ruled upon are 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 4:23-cv-00525-ALM-AGD Document 6 Filed 06/26/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 15
David BARNETT, petitioner, v. MISSOURI.

No. 17-8683.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri denied.