alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

SHANE JON BRAATEN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-30320

D.C. No. 1:11-cr-00002-JDS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Jack D. Shanstrom, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 10, 2012** 

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Shane Jon Braaten appeals from the 110-month sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

FILED

SEP 20 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-30320

affirm. 

Braaten contends that the district court failed to explain adequately the basis

for its sentence and ignored his policy arguments challenging the child

pornography Guideline. The record reflects that the court sufficiently explained

the reasons for imposing the below-Guidelines sentence, and that it considered

Braaten’s arguments. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.

2008) (en banc); United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008).

Braaten also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In

light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing

factors, Braaten’s below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

I, BachThuy T. Vo,certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Micro Component Technology, Inc.:

2. Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15) for the registrant and we have:

a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation.

c)disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

a)all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls overfinancial reporting.
| Dated: November 6, 2006 |   | By:                                             | /s/ BachThuy T. Vo |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------------------|
|                    |   | BachThuy T. Vo  Interim Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 18

- 00040

- CR

Vincent Gage Santoro

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 432nd District Court

o f Tarrant County (1453777D )

June 28, 2018

Opinion by Justi ce Pittman

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Mark T. Pittman

_________________ Justice Mark T. Pittman
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AT&T SERVICES, INC., AT&T MOBILITY, 

LLC AND AT&T CORP.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00397

LEAD CASE

JURY TRIAL

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00398

MEMBER CASE

JURY TRIAL

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AT&T SERVICES, INC., AT&T MOBILITY, 

LLC AND AT&T CORP.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Focus Patent Claims. Having considered the 

motion it is hereby GRANTED.

It is so ORDERD.

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 53-10 Filed 04/11/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1061
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

 DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

LAUREN BOWMAN,

Appellant,

 Case No. 5D23-632

 LT Case No. 2022-689-CF v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed June 27, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Clay County, 

Don H. Lester, Judge. 

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, 

and Natalie R. Gossett, Assistant 

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, 

for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

and Heather Flanagan Ross, 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

EISNAUGLE, KILBANE and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER 

I, Stephen T. Wills, certify that: 

1.              I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Palatin Technologies,          Inc.; 

2.              Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly          report; 

3.              Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information          included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

a)              designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared; 

b)              evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and          procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the          period covered by this 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to          materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial          reporting. 

5.              The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on          our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit          committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the          equivalent function): 

a)              all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls          which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,          summarize and report financial data and have identified for the          registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

b)              any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees          who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls. 

Date: November 14, 2003 

/s/ Stephen T. Wills
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 20, 2015

p0513 

# Order

Clerk May 20, 2015

149161

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Pl aintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149161

COA: 317720

Oakland CC: 07

- 213611

- FH

DAVID KATAJA

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 24, 2014 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC

Plaintiff,

v.

VALVE CORPORATION, 

GEARBOX SOFTWARE, LLC

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-419-JRG-RSP

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANT VALVE CORPORATION’S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, Plaintiff Valve Corporation (“Valve”) 

hereby states that it has no parent corporation, no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of 

Valve stock, and there is no parent, shareholder, member, or partner to identify as required by 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 12 Filed 11/06/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 160
2

Dated: November 6, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael E. Jones

Michael E. Jones (SBN: 10929400)

Shaun W. Hassett (SBN: 24074372)

Potter Minton

102 North College, Ste. 900

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: 903-597-8311 

mikejones@potterminton.com

shaunhassett@potterminton.com

Kathleen R. Geyer

Christopher P. Damitio 

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton

1420 Fifth Avenue Suite 3700 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Telephone: (206) 467-9600 

Facsimile: (206) 623-6793 

KGeyer@kilpatricktownsend.com 

CDamitio@kilpatricktownsend.com 

Attorneys for Defendant

Valve Corp.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 12 Filed 11/06/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 161
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 30238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10689]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: June 16, 2022.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 
National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1037, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Alumit Ishai, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Grants Management and Scientific Review, National Center 
for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 
6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1037, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-
9539, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#32535e475f5b461c5b415a535b725c5b5a1c555d44"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7819140d15110c56110b10191138161110561f170e">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, 
Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, 
B--Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research 
Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 13, 2022.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-10689 Filed 5-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
ASSOCIATION DES ELEVEURS DE CANARDS ET D'OIES DU QUEBEC, et al., petitioners, v. Xavier BECERRA, Attorney General of California.

No. 17-1285.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

AUTOSCRIBE CORPORATION 

 v. 

REPAY HOLDINGS CORPORATION, et al. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 2:23-cv-0349-JRG 

(Lead Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

AUTOSCRIBE CORPORATION 

 v. 

FORTIS PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 2:23-cv-0364-JRG 

(Member Case) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT (AGREED) MOTION FOR ENTRY OF 

DOCKET CONTROL ORDER AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR PRETRIAL 

PURPOSES 

Before the Court is Plaintiff Autoscribe Corporation and Defendants Repay Holdings 

Corporation and Repay Holdings, LLC’s (the “Parties”) Joint Motion for Entry of Docket Control 

Order and Motion to Consolidate for Pretrial Purposes (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. __). 

Having considered the Motion to Consolidate, and noting its joint nature, the Court finds that 

it should be and hereby is GRANTED. The above-captioned cases are hereby ORDERED to be 

CONSOLIDATED for all pretrial issues with the LEAD CASE, Case No. 2:23-cv-0349. All parties 

are instructed to file any future filings in the LEAD CASE. Individual cases remain active for trial. 

The Clerk is instructed to add only the Lead and Local Counsel of the consolidated parties into 

the Lead Case. 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 has appeared pro hac vice 

in any member case 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 a member case 

Case 2:23-cv-00349-JRG Document 28-2 Filed 12/18/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 243
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 state the relevant member case.

Case 2:23-cv-00349-JRG Document 28-2 Filed 12/18/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 244
Edward Louis THOMAS, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 18-6762.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

DEMETRIA SCOTT § 

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv263 

UNKNOWN DEFENDANT § 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Demetria Scott, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled civil rights lawsuit. This matter

was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the

Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States

Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition

of the case.

Discussion

The court previously entered a Preliminary Filing Fee Order. The court mailed a copy of the

order to plaintiff at the United States Penitentiary at Beaumont, Texas, the address plaintiff provided

to the court. The copy of the order sent to plaintiff was returned to the court with a notation that

plaintiff was no longer at the address he provided. Plaintiff has not supplied the court with a new

address or otherwise contacted the court.

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

want of prosecution sua sponte whenever necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious

disposition of cases. Anthony v. Marion Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980). 

See also McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir. 1988). Eastern District of Texas Local

Rule CV-11(d) requires pro se litigants such as plaintiff to provide the court with a physical address

and keep the clerk advised in writing of a current address.

By not providing the court with his correct address, plaintiff has prevented the court from

communicating with him and moving this case towards resolution. He has therefore failed to

Case 1:23-cv-00263-MAC-ZJH Document 6 Filed 08/18/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 11
diligently prosecute this case. This case should be dismissed without prejudice for want of

prosecution.

Recommendation

This civil rights lawsuit should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(b).

Objections

Within 14 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 14 days after service shall bar an aggrieved

party from 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, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.

2

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 18th day of August, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00263-MAC-ZJH Document 6 Filed 08/18/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 12
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40777 

Conference Calendar

 

RONALD DAVID SUTHERLAND,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, WARDEN WILSON;

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-94-CV-488

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

August 26, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ronald David Sutherland, federal prisoner # 24921-077, is

BARRED from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) under the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), because, on at

least three prior occasions while incarcerated, Sutherland has

brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that

was dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon

which relief could be granted. See Sutherland v. Zeller, No. 
No. 97-40777

-2-

95-40314 (5th Cir. 1995); Price v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal

Justice, No. H-94-4412 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 1996); Sutherland v.

Unidentified Larson, No. 96-40132 (5th Cir. Oct. 23, 1996); see

Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996)

(affirmance of a district court’s dismissal as frivolous counts

as a “strike”; dismissal counts as “strike” once appeal has been

waived). 

Accordingly, Sutherland’s IFP status is DECERTIFIED, and he

may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he

is in prison unless he is under imminent danger of serious

physical injury. See § 1915(g). The appeal is DISMISSED.

Sutherland has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay

the full appellate filing fee of $105 to the clerk of the

district court, should he wish to reinstate his appeal.

IFP DECERTIFIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR

ORDERED.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

PAMELA FLOOD 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0588-95-1 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

 JUNE 11, 1996 

EASTERN STATE HOSPITAL 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Gregory E. Camden (Rutter & Montagna, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 A. Ann Berkebile, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General; 

Catherine C. Hammond, Deputy Attorney 

General; Gregory E. Lucyk, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Citing the requirement of Code § 65.2-406(A)(5) that "a 

diagnosis of [a compensable] disease [must] first [be] 

communicated to the employee," and holding that the opinion of 

Mr. Huppert, a licensed clinical social worker, was insufficient 

to satisfy this requirement, the commission ruled that the 

claimant produced no proof of "a proper diagnosis and 

communication" and thus failed to prove a compensable 

occupational disease. The commission erred in thus holding. 

 A clinical social worker 

 is professionally qualified at the autonomous 

practice level to provide direct diagnostic, 

preventive and treatment services where 

functioning is threatened or affected by 

social and psychological stress or health 

impairment. 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

Code § 54.1-3700. Thus, Mr. Huppert was not disqualified as a 

matter of law from providing an acceptable diagnosis and 

communication of acute anxiety reaction. 

 The decision of the commission is reversed and this case is 

remanded to the commission with direction to receive and consider 

the opinion of Mr. Huppert, according to accepted standards of 

factual review, and to ascertain the sufficiency of that opinion 

to satisfy the requirements of Code § 65.2-406. 

 Reversed and remanded.