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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

JAMEOUS SMITH § 

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-cv-136

DANA T. WILLIAMS, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Jameous Smith, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit. This matter 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.

Procedural Background

On January 8, 2024, the court entered a Preliminary Filing Fee Order (doc. #6) directing

Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis accompanied by

a statement showing the average balance in, and average deposits into, his inmate trust account

during the preceding six month period. Plaintiff was given 20 days to comply with the court’s order. 

Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the order on January 13, 2024. The time for complying with the

order has expired. However, Plaintiff has not complied with the court’s order or otherwise contacted

the court.

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a 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., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370

U.S. 626, 629 (1962)).

By failing to comply with the order described above, Plaintiff has failed to diligently

prosecute this matter. As a result, this case should be dismissed without prejudice for want of

Case 9:23-cv-00136-MAC-CLS Document 8 Filed 02/07/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 8
prosecution.

Recommendation

This civil rights lawsuit should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Objections

Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within 14 days after

being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72(b).

A party’s failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district

judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th

Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual

findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

2

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 7th day of February, 2024.

Case 9:23-cv-00136-MAC-CLS Document 8 Filed 02/07/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 9
(N) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FILED 

JAN 1 6 2013 

Clerk, U.S. District 

Courts tor the o·~t . & Bankruptcy 

k net ot Columbia 

Frank Brett, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Judge Reggie Walton et al., 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

13 {1{$64 

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and 

application for leave to proceed informapauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is 

required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, is frivolous. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

Plaintiff is a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, suing U.S. District Judge Reggie B. 

Walton of this Court and a list of other defendants. Plaintiff states that on December 18, 2012, 

"all the logistics and civil rights harassment have been coming from Federal Judge Reggie 

Walton of Washington DC. I would see attorneys Andrea Carter [a named defendant] and 2 

other attorneys follow me into the Washington DC Federal Courthouse. I have the logistics as 

evidence." Compl. at 2. The remainder of the 19-page complaint is simply incomprehensible. 

The complaint presents the very type of fantastic or delusional scenarios warranting 

dismissal ofthe case under§ 1915(e) as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,325 

(1989); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, complaints, such as 

this one, that lack "an arguable basis in law and fact" are, too, subject to dismissal as frivolous. 

I 

4 
Brandon v. District of Columbia Bd. of Parole, 734 F.2d 56, 59 (D.C. Cir. 1984); see Crisafi v. 

Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ("A court may dismiss as frivolous 

complaints reciting bare legal conclusions with no suggestion of supporting facts, or postulating 

events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind."). A separate Order of dismissal 

accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

Date: January_//__, 2013 

2
No. 6:23-cv-00378

James Jones,

Plaintiff,

v.

Warden Unknown McNeil et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff James Jones, an inmate of the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

On September 29, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice due to 

plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order to satisfy the fee 

requirement and file an amended complaint. Doc. 5. A copy of the 

report was mailed to plaintiff, who sought and obtained an extension

of time to file objections. Docs. 6, 7. Plaintiff’s fourteen-day extension has expired without any further communication from him.

When no party objects to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for clear error. See Douglass 

v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satisfied that it 

contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. This case is dismissed without prejudice.

So ordered by the court on December 19, 2023.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00378-JCB-JDL Document 9 Filed 12/19/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 22
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2113

To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

to ensure proper disclosure to participants and beneficiaries under group

health plans covered under such title of limitations placed by such title

on certain protections that would otherwise apply under State law.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 9, 1999

Mr. SNYDER (for himself, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. FROST, Mr. OLVER, and

Mr. HINCHEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ensure proper disclosure to participants and beneficiaries under group health plans covered

under such title of limitations placed by such title on

certain protections that would otherwise apply under

State law.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Group Health Plan

5 Disclosure Act of 1999’’.
2

•HR 2113 IH

1 SEC. 2. NOTICE TO PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES OF

2 GROUP HEALTH PLANS OF EFFECT OF ERISA

3 LIMITATIONS ON PROTECTIONS OTHERWISE

4 APPLICABLE UNDER STATE LAW.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 102 of the Employee Re6 tirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1022)

7 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub8 section:

9 ‘‘(c) In the case of a group health plan (as defined

10 in section 733(a)(1)), the summary plan description shall

11 include a separate written notice stating that—

12 ‘‘(1) the provision of Federal causes of action

13 under this title may preclude other State law causes

14 of action against a group health plan, or against a

15 health insurance issuer offering health insurance

16 coverage in connection with a group health plan,

17 which would otherwise be available to a participant

18 or beneficiary, and

19 ‘‘(2) preemption of State laws under section

20 514 may preclude the effectiveness of certain State

21 mandates that would otherwise apply to group

22 health plans or plan benefits.

23 The plan administrator shall ensure that such a notice,

24 meeting the preceding requirements of this subsection and

25 written in a manner calculated to be understood by the
3

•HR 2113 IH

1 average plan participant, is provided to participants and

2 beneficiaries at least annually.’’.

3 (b) DAILY MONETARY PENALTIES AND OTHER RE4 LIEF FOR VIOLATIONS.—Section 502(c)(1) of such Act

5 (29 U.S.C. 1132(c)(1)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, section

6 102(c),’’ after ‘‘section 606’’.

7 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

8 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with

9 respect to plan years beginning on or after January 1,

10 2001.

Æ
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23




                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-80370) and (Form S-8 No. 33-92252) pertaining to the
Stock Option Plan of Norton McNaughton, Inc. and the Employee Stock Purchase
Plan of Norton McNaughton, Inc. of our report dated December 16, 1996, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Norton
McNaughton, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
November 2, 1996.








                                       ERNST & YOUNG LLP



New York, New York
January 27, 1997
Susan Elizabeth WALKER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5622.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Order entered February 1 3 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01235
- CV
EX PARTE NATHANIEL HUBERT On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. X
- 11
- 1261
- H 

### O RDER
O n October 18, 2012, this Court granted appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and we ordered court reporter Vicki Tuck to file the reporter’s record. To date, the reporter’s record has not been filed. Accordingly, we ORDER court reporter Vicki Tu ck to file, within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, the reporter’s record of the August 3, 2012 expunction hearing.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Vicki Tuck and the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first

- class mail, to Nathani e l Hubert , TDCJ No. 00491576, Byrd Unit, 21 F.M. 247, Huntsville, TX 77320.
/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 11749]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Just Above Midtown: 1974 to the Present” at The Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.                

Stacy E. White,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2022-11157 Filed 5-23-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> CT

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,570,692
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        70,704
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,613,873
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,570,692
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,157,541
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,179,252)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,179,252)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)


</TABLE>
Santiago Hum RODRIGUEZ-APARICIO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5322.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Baltic
International USA, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Robert L. Knauss, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive
Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

  (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
       15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

  (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
       respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
       Company.

Date:  March 31, 2009

                              /s/ Robert L. Knauss
                              -------------------------------------------------
                              Robert L. Knauss
                              Chief Executive Officer
Lynn ROBINSON, et al., petitioners, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., et al.

No. 18-685.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Trevor WALLACE, petitioner, v. TENNESSEE.

No. 18-739.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Division denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SUPER VISION INTERNATIONAL FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,478,145
<SECURITIES>                                   102,121
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,501,340
<ALLOWANCES>                                   156,517
<INVENTORY>                                  2,142,754
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,456,670
<PP&E>                                       5,873,909
<DEPRECIATION>                                (526,436)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,026,808
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,079,007
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,253
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,797,189
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,026,808
<SALES>                                      9,091,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,091,700
<CGS>                                        5,520,987
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,689,934
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             273,436
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                177,503
<INCOME-TAX>                                    82,447
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             95,056
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    95,056
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7007

JOHNNIE N. ROWE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr.,

District Judge. (CA-97-15)

Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 10, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnnie N. Rowe, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe Delforge, III,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion

for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Rowe v. North Carolina Attorney

Gen., No. CA-97-15 (M.D.N.C. June 23, 1997). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Faye Rennell HOBSON, petitioner, v. James MATTIS, Secretary of Defense.

No. 18-401.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies that, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Neurobiological Technologies, Inc., that
this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Neurobiological Technologies, Inc.



September 28, 2005



/S/    JONATHAN R.
WOLTERJonathan R. Wolter Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Neurobiological Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Neurobiological Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
upon request.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2075

To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical used in photography

products.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 8, 1999

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

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical used

in photography products.

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

3 SECTION 1. 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:

‘‘ 9902.61.04 Phosphonic acid,

[nitrilotris(methylene)]

tris-, pentasodium salt

(CAS No. 2235–43–0)

(provided for in subheading 2931.00.9030) Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2001 ’’.
2

•HR 2075 IH

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

2 this section applies to articles entered, or withdrawn from

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

4 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ