alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4076
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PEYTON BARBER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:07-cr-00024-FPS-1) Submitted: October 9, 2008 Decided: November 18, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brendan S. Leary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, Randolph J. Bernard, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Peyton Barber pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2000). She was sentenced to thirty months in prison. Barber sought a departure or variance sentence based upon the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine in the applicable advisory guidelines, but the district court found that Barber’s request was foreclosed by United States v. Eura , 440 F.3d 625 (4th Cir. 2006). Barber timely appealed. After the judgment was entered and while the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued Kimbrough v. United States , 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007). The Court held “it would not be an abuse of discretion for a district court to conclude when sentencing a particular defendant that the crack/powder disparity yields a sentence ‘greater than necessary’ to achieve § 3553(a)’s purposes, even in a mine-run case.” Id. at 574. Accordingly, the Court remanded to permit the district court to consider the 100-to-1 ratio of crack cocaine to powder cocaine in sentencing. Barber argues, and the Government concedes, that this case should be remanded for resentencing in light of Kimbrough . Because the district court did not have the benefit of Kimbroughwhen sentencing Barber, we vacate Barber’s sentence and remand for resentencing. We dispense with oral argument because3 the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED
`DTCC Repo-US Treasury <30 YR - NYSE LIFFE - NYPC                     Code-045L2T
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 12/17/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000)                            OPEN INTEREST:       51,769
COMMITMENTS
   1,383    5,059    4,267   45,787   42,209   51,437   51,535      332      234

CHANGES FROM 12/10/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      2,312)
    -247      696      133    2,377    1,553    2,263    2,382       49      -70

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     2.7      9.8      8.2     88.4     81.5     99.4     99.5      0.6      0.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       41)
       5       11        9       15       21       25       36`

---

Updated December 20, 2013
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-09-00346 -CV
Ann ie Be hr e ns , A ppe lla nt

v . Alfred More no and Donna Moreno, Appellees
F ROM THE DIST RICT COURT OF BEL L COUNTY, 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO . 2 30 ,1 17 -0, HO NO RAB LE PHIL LI P ZEIGL ER , J UDGE PRES ID IN G

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Appellant Annie B ehre ns filed a notice o f ap p ea l on J une 22, 2009. On J une 24, 2009, thi s Court rec eived notice from the Be ll County district cler k’s office that appe llant ha d n ot p a id o r m a de arr ang e me nts to p ay fo r t he c le rk ’s re c or d. On

July 16 , 200 9, the Cle rk of thi s Court se nt n oti c e to a

pp e lla nt t hat thi s a pp e a l wo uld be dis mis se d fo r wa nt of pr os e c uti on

if sh e did not make ar

rang ements to pay

for t h e re cord a

nd submit a status report to this Court by J uly 27, 2009. To date, a

ppellant has not re sponded to this Court’s notice. Acc ordi n gl y , we dismiss the appea l for wa

nt of prosec ution. Tex . R. App. P. 37.3(b).

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Puryear and Pember

ton Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: August 25, 2009
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                  LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF OLYMPIC STEEL, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                           STATE OF ORGANIZATION                               % OWNERSHIP
------------------                           ---------------------                               -----------
<S>                                       <C>                                                  <C>
Olympic Steel Lafayette, Inc.                Ohio                                                100%

Olympic Steel Minneapolis, Inc.              Minnesota                                           100%

Olympic Steel Receivables, Inc.              Delaware                                            100%

Olympic Steel Receivables LLC                Delaware                                            100%  (a)

Olympic Steel Trading, Inc.                  Ohio                                                100%

Oly Steel Welding, Inc.                      Michigan                                            100%

Olympic Steel Iowa, Inc.                     Iowa                                                100%  (b)

OLP LLC                                      Michigan                                             50%  (c)

G.S.P., LLC                                  Michigan                                             49%  (d)
</TABLE>




(a)  Owned 100% by Olympic Steel, Inc. and Olympic Steel Receivables, Inc.

(b)  Owned 100% by Olympic Steel Minneapolis, Inc.

(c)  Owned 50% by Oly Steel Welding, Inc.

(d)  Owned 49% by Oly Steel Welding, Inc.


                                       49
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 LUFKIN DIVISION

DAVID B. BYRD §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-158

DARRON A. LANE, JR., ET AL. §

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff David B. Byrd, a prisoner confined at the Wainwright Unit of the Texas Department

of Criminal Justice,Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The action 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

On November 30, 2023, Plaintiff was ordered to pay an initial partial filing fee of $11.15. 

Plaintiff was given thirty days to comply with the order. As of this date, Plaintiff has not paid the

initial partial filing fee or shown good cause for his failure to comply with the order. 

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

sponte for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., 905 F.3d

835, 844 (5th Cir. 2018); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “The power to

invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases

and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626,

629-30 (1962); Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997).

Case 9:23-cv-00158-MAC-ZJH Document 16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

24
Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case diligently because he has not complied with the

court order to pay an initial partial filing fee. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed without

prejudice for want of prosecution.

Recommendation

This action should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Objections

Within fourteen 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 fourteen days after service shall bar an

aggrieved party from the entitlement of 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, 1417 (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 5th day of January, 2024.

Case 9:23-cv-00158-MAC-ZJH Document 16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

25
Glynn Leterrel WELLS, petitioner, v. Shirlee HARRY, Warden.

No. 17-8324.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Cynthia CARPENTER-BARKER, petitioner, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAID, et al.

No. 18-715.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           7,680
<SECURITIES>                                    12,349
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,232
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (800)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,473
<PP&E>                                         414,322
<DEPRECIATION>                               (207,959)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 291,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,082
<BONDS>                                        277,537
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           121
<OTHER-SE>                                    (25,462)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   291,278
<SALES>                                         47,733
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,733
<CGS>                                           20,356
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,356
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,242
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,959
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,600)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        82
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,682)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,682)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.64)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00454 JRG-RSP

(LEAD CASE)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC

Plaintiff,

v.

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE

COMPANY; ARUBA NETWORKS, LLC

Case No. 2:23-cv-00457 JRG-RSP

(MEMBER CASE)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC’S NOTICE OF RELEVANT 

DETERMINATIONS FROM RELATED PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO PENDING 

MOTION TO STAY (DKT. NO. 52)

Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order Requiring Notice of Relevant Determinations 

from Related Proceedings, Plaintiff Cobblestone Wireless, LLC hereby notifies the Court of the 

following:

• Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Cobblestone Wireless, LLC, IPR2024-00606: A Joint 

Motion to Stay all Deadlines pending a settlement agreement has been filed in the 

related district court action, Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Samsung Electronics 

Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:23-cv-285-JRG-RSP, and the court ordered the case stayed 

through October 8, 2024, pending submission of dismissal papers. See Dkt. Nos. 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 09/30/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 544
2

67, 69; and

• Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v. Cobblestone Wireless, LLC, 

IPR2024-01336: A Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Resolution 

has been filed in the related district court action, Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. 

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Case No. 2:23-cv-382-JRG-RSP, and 

the court ordered the case stayed through October 8, 2024, pending submission of 

dismissal papers. See Dkt. Nos. 102, 104.

Dated: September 30, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Reza Mirzaie

Reza Mirzaie

CA State Bar No. 246953

Marc A. Fenster

CA State Bar No. 181067

Neil A. Rubin

CA State Bar No. 250761

Christian W. Conkle

CA State Bar No. 306374

Jonathan Ma

CA State Bar No. 312773

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Telephone: 310-826-7474

Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com

Email: mfenster@raklaw.com

Email: nrubin@raklaw.com

Email: cconkle@raklaw.com

Email: jma@raklaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 09/30/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 545
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic 

service are being served this 30th day of September 2024, with a copy of this document via the 

Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). 

/s/ Reza Mirzaie

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 09/30/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 546
Exhibit 32.2


                                  CERTIFICATION


            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


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 March 31, 2005 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..


Date: May 13, 2005


/s/ Jesse A. Levine
-------------------------------
Jesse A. Levine,
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Carlos Augusto FLORES ANYOSA, Petitioner v. William P. BARR, Attorney General

No. 18-1459

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7299

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DONALD WARDRICK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (1:95-cr-00294-PJM-1)

Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 20, 2018

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Wardrick, Appellant Pro Se. David Ira Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Wardrick appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a 

sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Wardrick, No. 1:95-cr-00294-PJM-1 (D. Md. Sept. 14, 

2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Trimeris, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Andrew L. Graham, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report 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/    ANDREW L. GRAHAM                                                              
|Andrew L. Graham Chief
Financial Officer and Secretary (Principal Accounting Officer)

May 7, 2010

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



28
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 32494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11583]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Data Collection Available for Public Comments

ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request 
approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the 
collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA) federal agencies to publish a notice in the Federal Register 
concerning each proposed collection of information before submission to 
OMB, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. 
This notice complies with that requirement.

DATES: Submit comments on or before August 1, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments to, Donald Smith, Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Women's Business Ownership, Small Business 
Administration.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Smith, Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#11557e7f707d753f627c786579516273703f767e67"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="23674c4d424f470d504e4a574b635041420d444c55">[email protected]</span></a> 202-205-7279, or Curtis B. Rich, 
Agency Clearance Officer, 202-205-7030 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#187b6d6a6c716b366a717b70586b7a79367f776e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4a293f383e233964382329220a39282b642d253c">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Women's Business Center Program is 
funded by the SBA to provide entrepreneurial development services and 
current business owners. There is no data collection currently in place 
to systematically track program outcomes such as client satisfaction, 
adoption of new business practices or change in business size or scope. 
This data collection fills the gap by administering a service outcome 
survey to a random sample of WBC clients.
    OMB Control Number: 3245-0402.
    Title: ``Women's Business Center Program''.
    Description of Respondents: Entrepreneurial development services 
and current business owners.
    Form Number: N/A.
    Annual Responses: 2,087.
    Annual Burden: 700.

Curtis Rich,
Agency Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-11583 Filed 5-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-09-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
United States District Court

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

RONALD SATISH EMRIT

V.

SABINE AISHA JULES

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23CV643

JUDGE MAZZANT/JUDGE JOHNSON

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, 

this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 

On October 24, 2023, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #7) that 

Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit’s claim be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction under

Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Having received the report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no timely objections 

being filed, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge 

are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 4:23-cv-00643-ALM-KPJ Document 10 Filed 12/02/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 40