alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6657** 

BRADLEY OLEY LESTER , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. DAVID BALLARD, Warden, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Charleston
. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. ( 2:12

- cv - 00224 )

Submitted : September 27, 2013 Decided: October 7, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jonathan D. Byrne, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, George H. Lancaster, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Christopher S. Dodrill , OF FICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL , Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bradley Oley Lester seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magist rate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue a bsent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the dis trict court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner mu st demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Leste r has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argum ent would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
ZIMMER, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. STRYKER CORPORATION, et al.

No. 18-1549

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES, ex rel. Brandon BARRICK, petitioner, v. PARKER-MIGLIORINI INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.

No. 17-1509.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC., ET AL.

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 2:23-CV-0103-JRG-RSP

Markman Hearing

MAG. JUDGE ROY PAYNE PRESIDING

July 11, 2024

OPEN: 1:30 pm ADJOURN: 2:57 pm 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF: Philip Wang

James Tsuei

Charles Ainsworth

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS: Lance Yang

Jonathan Bright

Tom Gorham

TECHNICAL ADVISOR: Mike Paul

LAW CLERK: Kyle Dockendorf

COURT REPORTER: Shawn McRoberts

COURTROOM DEPUTY: Becky Andrews

Court opened. Case called. Charles Ainsworth introduced co-counsel and announced ready. 

Tom Gorham introduced co-counsel and announced ready.

The Court heard argument on a term by term basis. Philip Wang and James Tsuei presented 

argument on behalf of Plaintiff. Lance Yang and Jonathan Bright presented argument on behalf 

of Defendants.

The Court took the claim construction matters under submission.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 105 Filed 07/11/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 4876
##### 



|                                   |  |          
|---------------------------------- |  | ---------
|LodgeNet Entertainment Corporation |  | Form 10-Q

Exhibit 32

LODGENET ENTERTAINMENT
CORPORATIONCERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT
TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

Each of the undersigned, Scott C. Petersen and Gary H. Ritondaro, the
Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of
LodgeNet Entertainment Corporation (the Company), individually and not
jointly has executed this Certification in connection with the filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the Report).

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:



| |  | Ø | the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and                               
| |  | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |  | Ø | the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



| |  | IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this
Certification as of the 11th day of
November 2003.
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ Scott C. Petersen  
| |  |                        
| |  | Scott C. Petersen      
| |  | Chief Executive Officer
| |  |                        
| |  | /s/ Gary H. Ritondaro  
| |  |                        
| |  | Gary H. Ritondaro      
| |  | Chief Financial Officer



|                   |         | 
|------------------ | ------- | 
|September 30, 2003 | Page 31 |
Michael Lee ROBINSON, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 18-9363

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 430 

Recognizing the 75th anniversary of the founding of Ducks Unlimited, Incorporated, the achievements of the organization in habitat conservation, 

and the support of the organization for the waterfowling heritage of 

the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 19, 2012 

Mr. WICKER (for himself, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. 

INHOFE, and Mr. TESTER) submitted the following resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 75th anniversary of the founding of Ducks 

Unlimited, Incorporated, the achievements of the organization in habitat conservation, and the support of the 

organization for the waterfowling heritage of the United 

States. 

Whereas Ducks Unlimited, Incorporated (referred to in this 

preamble as ‘‘Ducks Unlimited’’) was founded in 1937, 

when the drought-plagued waterfowl populations of North 

America plunged to unprecedented lows; 

Whereas, after decades of commitment to conserving waterfowl habitats, Ducks Unlimited has become the largest 

private organization for waterfowl and wetlands conservaVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:04 Apr 20, 2012 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR430.ATS SR430

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 430 ATS 

tion worldwide and one of the most effective private organizations dedicated to that cause; 

Whereas, since the founding of Ducks Unlimited, the organization has conserved and protected more than 4,500,000 

acres of waterfowl habitat in the United States and more 

than 12,600,000 acres of waterfowl habitat in North 

America; 

Whereas Ducks Unlimited has nearly 750,000 members internationally, including 550,000 members in the United 

States; 

Whereas, since the founding of Ducks Unlimited, the organization has raised more than $3,400,000,000 for waterfowl conservation and education, leveraging public support to obtain more than half of its contributions from 

private sources; 

Whereas Ducks Unlimited provides support to local projects 

that are important to waterfowlers in each State of the 

United States; and 

Whereas Ducks Unlimited maintains the vital mission of conserving, restoring, and managing wetlands and associated 

habitats for the waterfowl of North America, a mission 

that also benefits other wildlife and people: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate recognizes the important 

2 contributions of Ducks Unlimited, Incorporated and its 

3 members across the United States to the conservation of 

4 habitats and the preservation of the waterfowl of North 

5 America during the past 75 years. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             554
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   97,028
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    111,407
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               212,438
<PP&E>                                          35,327
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 285,221
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,165
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           146
<OTHER-SE>                                     190,009
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   295,221
<SALES>                                         55,417
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,722
<CGS>                                           30,343
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,526
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,706
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,900
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 366
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,490
<INCOME-TAX>                                       880
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,610
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,610
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
Jingyuan FENG, petitioner, v. Sheena KOMENDA, et al.

No. 18-6644.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 99.1

      Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
               under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Each of the undersigned  officers hereby  certifies that, to his knowledge,  (1)
the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of  Productivity  Technologies  Corp. for the
quarter  ended  December 31, 2002 as to which this  Certification  is an exhibit
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934 (15  U.S.C.  78m(a)  or  78o(d))  and (2) the  information
contained  in  such  Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of Productivity Technologies Corp.


Signed this 19th day of February 2003.



By: /s/  Samuel N. Seidman
    -------------------------------------
    Samuel N. Seidman
    Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President



By: /s/  Jesse A. Levine
    --------------------------------------
    Jesse A. Levine
    Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
David WRIGHT, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7460

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,825
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,096
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    121,407
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               132,080
<PP&E>                                         144,762
<DEPRECIATION>                                (25,450)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 256,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,225
<BONDS>                                         39,070
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       106,319
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,424
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   256,108
<SALES>                                        576,189
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               576,189
<CGS>                                          455,544
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  455,544
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               125,184
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,856
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,490)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,059)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,431)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,431)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.79)
        

</TABLE>
Joey BANKS, Petitioner, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden.

No. 19-7287.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020.

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         605,797
<SECURITIES>                                   228,173
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,710,385
<ALLOWANCES>                                   106,910
<INVENTORY>                                 11,525,574
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,086,165
<PP&E>                                       9,614,073
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,937,118
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,989,234
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,782,956
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,475
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,966,408
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,989,234
<SALES>                                     23,446,021
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,446,021
<CGS>                                       18,399,517
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,994,943
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               716,392
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             820,764
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (265,314)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (90,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (175,314)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 01/15/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       83,583
COMMITMENTS
   6,354    8,950        0   71,367   71,519   77,721   80,469    5,862    3,114

CHANGES FROM 01/08/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      1,015)
     440    2,789      -90      759   -1,651    1,109    1,048      -94      -33

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     7.6     10.7      0.0     85.4     85.6     93.0     96.3      7.0      3.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       72)
       9        8        0       36       32       45       40
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 01/15/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:      164,445
COMMITMENTS
  37,708   21,482    1,459  109,610  138,362  148,777  161,303   15,668    3,142

CHANGES FROM 01/08/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      8,585)
   7,269    1,913      -32    2,420    8,763    9,657   10,644   -1,072   -2,059

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    22.9     13.1      0.9     66.7     84.1     90.5     98.1      9.5      1.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      135)
      39       15        4       63       36      105       52
```

----

Updated January 18, 2013
John RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 19-6426

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Case 2:23-cv-00409-JRG-RSP Document 41-6 Filed 04/02/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 670
Case 2:23-cv-00409-JRG-RSP Document 41-6 Filed 04/02/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 671
Case 2:23-cv-00409-JRG-RSP Document 41-6 Filed 04/02/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 672
Charles Wayne BUSSELL, petitioner, v. KENTUCKY.

No. 18-6725.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

*839Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6102

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY MARVIN GAMBLE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(2:10-cr-00020-DCN-1; 2:11-cv-03339-DCN)

Submitted: July 30, 2013 Decided: August 14, 2013

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Marvin Gamble, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Modica, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Marvin Gamble seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2013) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Gamble has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Gamble’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a 

certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Tomas RAMIREZ-CRUZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6404.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT THE BONAPARTE FAMILY LIVING TRUST’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM – Solo Page 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION 

KATHRYN SNEED and SNEED, § 

EQUESTRIAN ESTATES, LLC, § 

 § 

 Plaintiffs, § 

 § 

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-cv-00871-ALM 

 § 

JEFFREY GIBBS, CALLI ROUSE, § 

GIBBS SHOW HORSES, CALLI ROUSE § 

SHOW HORSES, BLACK BIRD RANCH, § 

THE BONAPARTE FAMILY LIVING § 

TRUST, FRANK BONAPARTE, § 

PATRICIA BONAPARTE, JUSTIN § 

SCHMIDT, and JEANNIE SCHMIDT, § 

 § 

 Defendants. § 

ORDER ON DEFENDANT THE BONAPARTE FAMILY LIVING TRUST’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

After considering Defendant The Bonaparte Family Living Trust’s Motion to Dismiss for 

Failure to State a Claim (“Motion”), and Plaintiffs Kathryn Sneed and Sneed Equestrian Estates, 

LLC’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) response, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that any and all claims and 

causes of action asserted by Plaintiffs against Defendant The Bonaparte Family Living Trust are 

hereby dismissed.