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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

CLO VIRTUAL FASHION INC.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ZHEJIANG LINGDI DIGITAL 

TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. (D/B/A 

LINCTEX),

Defendants.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00274-JRG-RSP

ORDER

Linctex previously filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. (Dkt. 

No. 12.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 62), 

recommending denial of Linctex’s Motion to Dismiss. Because no objections have been 

filed and for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Recommendation 

is ADOPTED. It is therefore ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal 

Jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 12) is DENIED.

§ 

.

____________________________________

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 16th day of September, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-00274-JRG-RSP Document 66 Filed 09/16/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 990
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,437
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,614
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    102,841
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         102,841
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           102,841
<LOANS>                                        332,183
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 522,553
<DEPOSITS>                                     319,788
<SHORT-TERM>                                    49,936
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,707
<LONG-TERM>                                    110,442
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,680
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 522,553
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,077
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,674
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,751
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,634
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,762
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,989
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      120
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  54
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,160
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,116
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,116
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       755
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.12
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,149
<LOANS-PAST>                                        82
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,648
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        9
<RECOVERIES>                                         6
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,745
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,745


</TABLE>
Alex M. AZAR, II, Secretary of Health and Human Services, petitioner, v. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES, et al.

No. 17-1484.

Supreme Court of the United States

Sept. 27, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted limited to the following question: Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1395hh(a)(2) or § 1395hh(a)(4) required the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking before providing the challenged instructions to a Medicare Administrator Contractor making initial determinations of payments due under Medicare.
Order filed September 25, 2014 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00549-CR

____________

GLENN LLOYD KINGHAM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court No. 3

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MD-0338715

ORDER

No clerk’s record or reporter’s record has been filed in this case. The clerk 

and court reporter informed this court that appellant had not made arrangements 

for payment for the clerk’s record or reporter’s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). 

On August 12, 2014, we abated this appeal for a hearing in the trial court to 

determine if appellant is entitled to proceed without the payment of costs. See Tex.

R. App. P. 37.3(b), (c)(2(B). 
A hearing was held August 22, 2014, and a record of that hearing has been 

filed in this court. The record reflects the trial court found appellant is not entitled 

to proceed without payment of costs. Rule 37.3(b) of the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure provides:

If No Clerk's Record Filed Due to Appellant's Fault. If the trial court 

clerk failed to file the clerk's record because the appellant failed to pay 

or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparing the clerk's 

record, the appellate court may--on a party's motion or its own 

initiative--dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the 

appellant was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. The court 

must give the appellant a reasonable opportunity to cure before 

dismissal.

Accordingly, appellant is ordered to provide this court with proof of 

payment for the clerk’s record within 30 days of the date of this order or this court 

may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
Gary Michael ALLEN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5939.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

NATHANIEL BRYANT, II, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-135

§

OFFICER ELIZONDO, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Nathaniel Bryant, II, 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.

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate

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

On October 16, 2023, the magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action without prejudice

for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). To date, the parties

have not filed objections to the report.

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

Magistrate Judge pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available

evidence. After careful review, the court finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of

the United States Magistrate Judge are correct. 

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

correct, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (#4) is

Case 9:23-cv-00135-MAC-ZJH Document 6 Filed 12/01/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 15
ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate

judge’s recommendation. 

2

________________________________________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 1st day of December, 2023.

Case 9:23-cv-00135-MAC-ZJH Document 6 Filed 12/01/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 16
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 05/08/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      464,699
COMMITMENTS
  39,997   53,940  107,691  293,136  285,217  440,824  446,848   23,875   17,851

CHANGES FROM 05/01/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      7,316)
 -10,019    6,423   -6,074   21,319    4,900    5,226    5,249    2,090    2,067

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     8.6     11.6     23.2     63.1     61.4     94.9     96.2      5.1      3.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      130)
      21       36       41       66       63      118      112
```

----

Updated May 11, 2012
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 31237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11011]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also 
involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also 
includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies 
with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843), and 
interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in section 4. Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than June 22, 2022.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Fidelity Federal Bancorp, Evansville, Indiana; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring Community Banks of Shelby County, Cowden, 
Illinois, and also to retain United Fidelity Bank, F.S.B., Evansville, 
Indiana, and thereby engage in operating a savings association pursuant 
to section 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of the Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-11011 Filed 5-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

Symbology Innovations, LLC 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

The Aaron's Company, Inc. d/b/a BrandsMart 

U.S.A., Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 2:23-cv-00268 

Judge Rodney Gilstrap 

DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME 

FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 

 Pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and LR CV-12, Defendant 

The Aaron's Company, Inc. (“Aaron’s”), by and through its undersigned counsel, moves to 

extend the time for Defendant Aaron’s to object, respond to, move, or otherwise answer 

Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1). Defendant Aaron’s requests a fifteen (15) day extension of 

time for Defendant’s answer up to and including August 27, 2023. 

In support of this Motion, Defendant Aaron’s shows the following: 

1. Defendant Aaron’s received the Complaint by service on its registered agent on 

June 7, 2023. 

2. The initial deadline to answer or otherwise respond was June 28, 2023. 

3. Defendant Aaron’s previously sought, and on June 26, 2023, the Court granted, a 

first 30-day extension of time for Defendant Aaron’s to answer or otherwise respond to the 

Complaint—extending the deadline to July 28, 2023. 

Case 2:23-cv-00268-JRG Document 10 Filed 08/11/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 140
4. Defendant Aaron’s further sought, and on July 27, 2023, the Court granted, a 

second 30-day extension of time for Defendant Aaron’s to answer or otherwise respond to the 

Complaint—extending the deadline to August 12, 2023. 

5. Plaintiff Symbology Innovations, LLC consents to a third requested extension of 

the deadline, up to and including August 27, 2023. 

6. This motion is made in good faith, as the parties need additional time to consider 

the issues and continue discussing potential resolution, and Defendant needs additional time to 

answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

7. This motion is not made for delay, but only to permit orderly resolution of issues 

in the case. Counsel for Defendant has conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is not 

opposed to the extension of time sought in this motion. 

 WHEREFORE, for good cause shown, Defendant Aaron’s respectfully requests 

that the Court grant the motion and extend the time to answer or otherwise respond to the 

Complaint to and including August 27, 2023. A proposed Order is submitted with this motion. 

Dated: August 11, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Eric J. Maiers 

Eric J. Maiers 

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 

77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

(312) 456-8400

Counsel for Defendant. 

Case 2:23-cv-00268-JRG Document 10 Filed 08/11/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 141
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000909992
<NAME> THE BEARD COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             729
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,049
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (62)
<INVENTORY>                                        671
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,774
<PP&E>                                          18,233
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,072)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,402
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,443
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,200
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,260
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,402
<SALES>                                            378
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,495
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,488
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (176)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   112
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 198
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,036)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        45
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 45
<DISCONTINUED>                                     632
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (449)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)
        

</TABLE>
Case 2:23-cv-00227-JRG-RSP Document 4 Filed 06/05/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 373
Case 2:23-cv-00227-JRG-RSP Document 4 Filed 06/05/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 374
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2209

To suspend temporarily the duty on filter blue green photo dye.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 15, 1999

Mr. HAYWORTH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on filter blue green photo

dye.

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.62 Iron, chloro 5,6-diamino-1,3-naphthalene disulfonate complexes. (CAS

No. 85187–44–6) (provided for in

subheading 2942.00.10) .................... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2003 ’’.

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

9 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to goods entered,
2

•HR 2209 IH

1 or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

2 the date that is 15 days after the date of the enactment

3 of this Act.

Æ
Ndioba NIANG, et al., petitioners, v. Brittany TOMBLINSON, et al.

No. 17-1428.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to that court with instructions to direct the District Court to dismiss the case as moot. See *United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,*340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36(1950).
Desmond CAMP, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6809.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40128 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JESUS DELGADO-GENCHIS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-02-CR-1277-ALL

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jesus Delgado-Genchis (“Delgado”) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation after a conviction for an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). The district court sentenced Delgado to 15 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. Delgado argues, for the first time on appeal, that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466No. 03-40128 -2- (2000). He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow the precedent set in Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984. Delgado also argues that a conflict exists between the district court’s oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment because the written judgment contains a condition of supervised release prohibiting the possession of a dangerous weapon, but at the sentencing hearing, the court did not mention this prohibition. For the reasons outlined in United States v. Torres-Aguilar , 352 F.3d 934, 937-38 (5th Cir. 2003), we conclude that the district court’s omission of the dangerous-weapon prohibition during the oral pronouncement of sentence did not create a conflict with the sentence set forth in the judgment.
AFFIRMED.
Casey PEEBLES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5394.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., 

THROUGH ITS GATE PHARMACEUTICALS 

DIVISION, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

EISAI CO., LTD. AND EISAI MEDICAL RESEARCH, 

INC., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

__________________________ 

2009-1593 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of New Jersey in case no. 08-CV-2344, Chief 

Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. 

__________________________ 

O R D E R 

Upon consideration of the order of the Supreme Court 

of the United States in Eisai Co., Ltd., et al., v. Teva 

Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Through Its Gate Pharmaceuticals Division, --- S.Ct. ---- (2011), vacating this court’s 

judgment, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS v. EISAI CO 2

(1) The mandate of this court issued on December 13, 

2010 is recalled, the appeal is reinstated, and this court’s 

October 6, 2010 judgment is vacated. 

(2) The appeal is remanded to the district court with 

instructions to dismiss the complaint as moot. 

FOR THE COURT

July 21, 2011 

—————————— 

Date 

/s/ Jan Horbaly 

—————————— 

Jan Horbaly 

Clerk 

cc: Francis C. Lynch, Esq. 

Bruce M. Wexler, Esq.
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 12/31/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       44,650
COMMITMENTS
   8,466    1,957    1,765   24,322   30,987   34,553   34,709   10,097    9,941

CHANGES FROM 12/24/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        357)
    -683      -30      519    1,045     -119      881      370     -524      -13

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    19.0      4.4      4.0     54.5     69.4     77.4     77.7     22.6     22.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       56)
      11        6       10       32       27       49       39
```

----

Updated January 4, 2013