alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fox Joseph SALERNO, petitioner, v. Jo Lynn GENTRY, Judge, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, et al.

No. 18-5767.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

ROCKY ALLEN WILSON § 

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-28

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID §

MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING TRANSFER

Petitioner Rocky Allen Wilson, an inmate confined at the LeBlanc Unit of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, brings this

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The Petition 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.

Discussion 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) allows a district court to “entertain an application for a writ of

habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on 

the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A state prisoner is required to file his federal petition for writ of 

habeas corpus in either the district where the prisoner is incarcerated or the district where the 

prisoner was convicted and sentenced. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Although both district courts have 

jurisdiction to entertain the application, “[t]he district court for the district wherein such an 

application is filed, in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice, may transfer the 

application to the other district court for hearing and determination.” Id.

Case 1:23-cv-00028-MJT-CLS Document 2 Filed 01/30/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 21
Petitioner filed this Petition in the Beaumont Division of the Eastern District of Texas.

However, Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in Hopkins County, which is located in the

Sherman Division. 

The court has considered the circumstances and has determined that the interests of justice

would be served if this Petition were transferred to the division where Petitioner was convicted and

sentenced. Therefore, the Petition should be transferred to the Sherman Division for hearing and

determination. It is accordingly

ORDERED that this Petition is TRANSFERRED to the Sherman Division of the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 

2

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 30th day of January, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00028-MJT-CLS Document 2 Filed 01/30/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 22
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

 

 

 

Patent Armory Inc.,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,

 Defendant. 

 

 Case No. 2:23-cv-199 

 Patent Case 

 Jury Trial Demanded 

 

 

PLAINTIFF'S RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, Plaintiff states that it does not have a parent corporation 

and that there is no publicly held corporation owning ten percent or more of its stock. 

Dated: May 5, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 /s/ Isaac Rabicoff 

 Isaac Rabicoff 

 Rabicoff Law LLC 

 600 Mamaroneck Ave STE 400 

 Harrison, NY 10528 

 7736694590 

 isaac@rabilaw.com 

 

 

 Counsel for Plaintiff

Patent Armory Inc.

 

Case 2:23-cv-00199-JRG Document 3 Filed 05/05/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 118
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on all parties 

who have appeared in this case on May 5, 2023 via the Court’s CM/ECF system. 

 /s/ Isaac Rabicoff 

 Isaac Rabicoff 

Case 2:23-cv-00199-JRG Document 3 Filed 05/05/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 119
Charles G. KINNEY, petitioner, v. Michele R. CLARK, et al.

No. 18-510.

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.
Mike Peter GALLARDO, petitioner, v. ARIZONA.

No. 18-5517.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County denied.
The HONORABLE GARY A. FENNER, United States District Judge for the *

Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

The HONORABLE MICHAEL J. DAVIS, United States District Judge for the 1

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1377

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Jerry Alan Morey, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 10, 1997

Filed: July 22, 1997

___________

Before LOKEN and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and FENNER, District Judge. *

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Morey pleaded guilty to theft of mail by a postal employee. The district

court sentenced him to eight months in prison and three years of supervised release. 1

Morey now appeals two special conditions of his supervised release. As he did not 
-2-

object to these conditions at sentencing, we are limited to plain error review. See

United States v. Iversen, 90 F.3d 1340, 1343 (8th Cir. 1996).

First, Morey argues that requiring him to “participate, as instructed by the

probation officer, in a program . . . for treatment of narcotic addiction or drug

dependency” improperly transfers to the probation officer the duty of the court to

establish periodic drug testing, one of the conditions mandated in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d).

We disagree. Section 3583(d) authorizes the district court to impose discretionary

supervised release conditions. Morey is a long-term drug addict who stole to feed his

addiction. His sentence mandates five hundred hours of drug treatment while he is in

prison. Giving the probation officer authority to require additional drug treatment

during supervised release is an appropriate discretionary condition that goes beyond the

drug testing mandated by § 3583(d). Similar conditions have been imposed in prior

cases. See United States v. Schoenrock, 868 F.2d 289, 290 n.3 (8th Cir. 1989). 

Second, Morey argues that the condition forbidding him to own or possess a

firearm while on supervised release is invalid because it is unrelated to his offense.

However, § 3583(d) mandates the explicit condition that he not commit a crime during

supervised release. Morey is now a convicted felon who may not lawfully possess a

firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). By clarifying a portion of the mandatory condition

that he not commit a crime, this condition would seem to benefit Morey. In any event,

its imposition cannot be plain error. See U.S.S.G. § 5B1.4(b)(14).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2160

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain chemical compounds.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 10, 1999

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

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain chemical

compounds.

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:

‘‘ 9902.29.50 2,4-

Dicumylphenol

(CAS No. 2772–

45–4) (provided

for in subheading

2907.29.90) ....... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2002 ’’.
2

•HR 2160 IH

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

2 subsection (a) shall apply to goods entered, or withdrawn

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the date that

4 is 15 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

5 (c) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.—Notwithstanding

6 section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provi7 sion of law, upon proper request filed with the Customs

8 Service within 180 days after the date of the enactment

9 of this Act, any entry, or withdrawal from warehouse for

10 consumption, of goods described in subheading

11 2907.29.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

12 United States—

13 (1) which was made after December 31, 1998,

14 and before the date that is 15 days after the date

15 of the enactment of this Act, and

16 (2) with respect to which there would have been

17 no duty if the amendment made by subsection (a)

18 applied to such entry or withdrawal,

19 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as if such amendment

20 applied to such entry or withdrawal.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000911167
<NAME>                        ARIEL CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         6,141,333
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,116,357
<ALLOWANCES>                                   212,678
<INVENTORY>                                    3,781,134
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,261,933
<PP&E>                                         4,708,847
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,181,756
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,612,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,708,550
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       9,169,325
<OTHER-SE>                                     11,344,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,612,539
<SALES>                                        7,059,562
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,059,562
<CGS>                                          3,940,742
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,940,742
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               9,602,055
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             28,733
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,154,270)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,154,270)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,154,270)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.61)
        


</TABLE>
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 04/10/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       53,618
COMMITMENTS
   4,160    3,579       37   44,239   47,554   48,436   51,170    5,182    2,448

CHANGES FROM 04/03/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      1,864)
    -717      840       37    2,249      729    1,569    1,606      295      258

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     7.8      6.7      0.1     82.5     88.7     90.3     95.4      9.7      4.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       60)
       4        6        1       30       31       35       37
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 04/10/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       83,728
COMMITMENTS
  15,780    5,573      670   56,327   73,389   72,777   79,632   10,951    4,096

CHANGES FROM 04/03/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:       -975)
  -1,046   -1,353      447     -186     -229     -785   -1,135     -190      160

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    18.8      6.7      0.8     67.3     87.7     86.9     95.1     13.1      4.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       95)
      22       10        3       42       38       65       50
```

----

Updated April 13, 2012
Francisco HEREDIA-SILVA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6830.

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.
Horace Vonche JORDAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6599.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied. Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice GINSBURG joins, dissenting from denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in *Brown v. United States,* 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 14, 202 L.E.2d 302 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
Crystal Nicole KURI, petitioner, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, EMPLOYMENT SECURITY BOARD OF REVIEW.

No. 18-6074.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
James Edward GRIFFIN, petitioner, v. Eric ARNOLD, Warden.

No. 18-6636.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

LOWELL BAISDEN, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-15023 

D.C. No. 1:06-cv-01368-AWI-MJS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2017**

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Lowell Baisden appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment modifying 

a permanent injunction under 26 U.S.C. § 7408 barring Baisden from promoting an 

abusive tax scheme. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 

novo the district court’s legal conclusions, for clear error its factual findings, and 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JUN 30 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-15023 

for an abuse of discretion its decision to grant a permanent injunction and the 

scope of the injunction. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, 710 F.3d 1020, 

1030 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing the permanent 

injunction, as modified, because the injunction “state[s] its terms specifically” and 

“describe[s] in reasonable detail . . . the act or acts restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 65(d)(1); United States v. Kapp, 564 F.3d 1103, 1114 (9th Cir. 2009) (upholding 

against a vagueness and overbreadth challenge an injunction prohibiting a 

defendant from preparing tax returns claiming a specified tax deduction).

We reject as meritless Baisden’s contentions that the injunction punishes 

past conduct and violates his First Amendment rights. See United States v. Estate 

Pres. Servs., 202 F.3d 1093, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000) (upholding against a First 

Amendment challenge a 26 U.S.C. § 7408 injunction because it “proscribes only 

fraudulent conduct” and defendants “may continue to publish legitimate tax 

planning advice”).

AFFIRMED.
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





Based on a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 of Agree Realty Corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Agree, Chief 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, containing the financial statements, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





/s/ Richard AgreeRichard AgreeChief Executive Officer andChairman of the Board of Directors





March 15, 2011
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No. 201 7 0 0 298

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### GARRETT J. BRETHAUER Airman (E

- 3 ) , U.S. Navy Appellant

_________________________ Appeal from th e United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Captain Ann K. Minami , JAGC, USN

. Convening Authority: Command ing Officer , USS NIMITZ (CVN 68)

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation : Lieutenant Commander

J ames M. Kennedy , JAGC, USN

. For Appellant: Captain William S. Laragy , JAGC, USN

.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq

.

_________________________ Decided 31 January 2018

_________________________ Before M ARKS , W OODARD , and E LLINGTON , Appellate Military Ju dges

_________________________ Aft er careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
D.L., petitioner, v. WISCONSIN.

No. 18-6032.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District II denied.
Paul NASEMAN, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 17-8812.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

AUTOSCRIBE CORPORATION,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M&A VENTURES, LLC.

 Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 

Civil Action No. 2:23-CV-00349-JRG

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant M&A Ventures, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Unopposed Motion 

for Leave to File Under Seal (the “Motion to Seal”). (Dkt. No. 92). In the Motion to Seal, 

Defendant requests “to file under seal M&A’s Hearing Demonstratives used during the July 17, 

2024 hearing on M&A’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, attached hereto as Exhibit A”

because the Hearing Demonstratives “include highly confidential business information, including 

M&A’s organizational structure and compliance documentation, quotations from depositions and 

declarations designated as Attorneys’ Eyes Only, and information subject to a non-disclosure 

agreement.” (Dkt. No. 92 at 1). Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion to Seal. (Id. at 2, 3).

Having considered the Motion to Seal, and noting its unopposed nature, the Court is of the 

opinion that the Motion to Seal should be and hereby is GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED

that Defendant may file the Hearing Demonstratives under seal.

.

____________________________________

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of July, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-00349-JRG Document 93 Filed 07/24/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 2793
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON 

WIRELESS

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP

(Lead Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T SERVICES INC.; et al.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00380-JRG-RSP

(Member Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

T-MOBILE USA, INC.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00381-JRG-RSP

(Member Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE 

INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS

Pending before the Court is Cobblestone Wireless, LLC (“Cobblestone”) Unopposed 

Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Infringement and Invalidity Contentions. The Court, having 

considered the unopposed motion, and for good cause shown, finds that the motion should be 

GRANTED.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadlines are extended as Cobblestone to serve 

contentions pursuant to P.R. 3-1 & 3.2 to December 11, 2023 and the deadline for AT&T Mobility 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 47-1 Filed 12/04/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 205
2

LLC, AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T Corp. (“AT&T”), Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 

(“Verizon”), and T-Mobile USA, Inc., (“T-Mobile”) (collectively, the “Defendants”) to serve 

contentions pursuant to P.R. 3-3 & 3-4 to February 5, 2024.

All other deadlines shall remain in place absent further leave of Court.

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 47-1 Filed 12/04/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 206
Benjamin TILLMAN, petitioner, v. J.A. BARNHART, Warden.

No. 18-6984.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

 Eastern District of Texas COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC AT&T SERVICES INC., ET AL 2:23-cv-00380-JRG-RSP COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC 09/06/2023 /s/ Qi Tong Qi Tong CA SBN 330347

RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT 

12424 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90025

ptong@raklaw.com (310) 826-7474 (310) 826-6991 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:23-cv-00380-JRG-RSP Document 16 Filed 09/06/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 81