alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, '

'

Plaintiff, '

'

versus ' NO. 9:23-CR-30

'

'

ALBERTO FEDERICO GONZALEZ '

BARRAZA a/k/a “MARTIN GONZALEZ” '

a/k/a “ALBERTO FEDERICO '

BARRAZA” a/k/a “FEDERICO '

BARRAZA” a/k/a “FEDERICO '

BARRAZA-GONZALEZ” '

a/k/a “FEDERICO '

BARRAZ-GONZALES” a/k/a '

“ALBERTO GONZALES-BARRAZ” '

a/k/a “FEDERICO GONZALAES” '

a/k/a “ALBERTO BARRAZ GONZALES” '

a/k/a “ALBERTO FEDERIC '

GONZALES-BARRAZ” a/k/a '

“ALBERTO F. GONZALEZ” a/k/a '

“ALBERTO FEDERIC '

GONZALEZ-BARRAZ” a/k/a '

“ALBERTO FEDER '

GONZALES-BARRAZA” a/k/a '

“ALBERTO BARRAZA GONZALEZ” '

a/k/a “ALBERTO GONZALEZ” a/k/a '

“ALBERTO GONZALES-BARRAZA” '

a/k/a “GEORGE GUTIERREZ” '

'

Defendant. '

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION

ON DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for administration of a guilty plea under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. Judge Hawthorn conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed 

Case 9:23-cr-00030-MAC-ZJH Document 21 Filed 04/08/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 55
2

by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and issued his Findings of Fact and 

Recommendation on Guilty Plea Before the United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate 

judge recommended that the court accept the Defendant’s guilty plea. He further 

recommended that the court adjudge the Defendant guilty on Count One of the Indictment filed 

against the Defendant.

The parties have not objected to the magistrate judge’s findings. The court ORDERS 

that the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of the United States Magistrate 

Judge are ADOPTED. The court accepts the Defendant’s plea but defers acceptance of the 

plea agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

It is further ORDERED that, in accordance with the Defendant’s guilty plea and the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, the Defendant, Alberto Federico Gonzalez 

Barraza, is adjudged guilty as to Count One of the Indictment charging a violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A) (Possession of a Firearm by a Prohibited Person).

Case 9:23-cr-00030-MAC-ZJH Document 21 Filed 04/08/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 56
Gregory KING, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8280.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CMI INDUSTRIES FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             690
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,024
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (725)
<INVENTORY>                                     25,678
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                88,448
<PP&E>                                         200,692
<DEPRECIATION>                                (149,335)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,768
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,516
<BONDS>                                        113,287
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           595
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,429
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,768
<SALES>                                        150,083
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               150,412
<CGS>                                          147,322
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  158,070
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,120
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (16,778)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (16,778)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (8,324)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 12,597
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (12,505)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (14.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (14.54)


</TABLE>
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 10/30/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       43,508
COMMITMENTS
   9,407    2,322    1,903   20,493   29,338   31,804   33,563   11,705    9,945

CHANGES FROM 10/23/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        399)
     385      524      124      187      313      695      961     -297     -562

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    21.6      5.3      4.4     47.1     67.4     73.1     77.1     26.9     22.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       56)
      17        6        9       26       24       47       36
```

----

Updated November 2, 2012
EXHIBIT 4

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-3 Filed 05/01/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1012
From: Kristopher Davis

To: *** GDCVerizon-Headwater; Dominguez, Kate; [EXT] Dacus, Deron

Cc: headwater@raklaw.com; Chris Bunt

Subject: Headwater v. Verizon (EDTX-352) | Draft DCO, DO, PO

Date: Monday, October 9, 2023 3:55:17 PM

Attachments: DRAFT DCO (EDTX-352).docx

ATT00001.htm

DRAFT Protective Order (EDTX-352).docx

ATT00002.htm

DRAFT Discovery Order (EDTX-352).docx

ATT00003.htm

[WARNING: External Email]

Counsel for Verizon,

Please find attached drafts of the DCO, DO, and PO for this case. The DCO and DO are due

Thursday, Oct. 12, and the PO is due next Thursday, Oct. 19. Please provide Verizon’s

feedback on the drafts.

We also wanted to provide Headwater’s feedback on your email copied below. Regarding

your request for an additional week extension on Verizon’s invalidity/eligibility contention

deadlines, the attached draft DCO accepts Verizon’s proposal and sets those deadlines for

December 14, 2023.

Regarding your request for a stipulated dismissal of Verizon Communications Inc. (“VCI”),

Headwater should be amenable provided that, in addition to confirming that the dismissal

would not affect the ability of the remaining defendants to satisfy any judgment, Verizon also

confirms that: (1) the remaining defendants will not contest venue; and (2) VCI has had no

involvement in any allegedly infringing conduct identified in Headwater’s complaint and

infringement contentions since July 2017. If Verizon agrees, please send a proposed

stipulation to that effect for our review.

Regarding your proposal for claim narrowing, we believe it is premature and do not accept

Verizon’s proposal.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-3 Filed 05/01/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           8,799
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,705
<ALLOWANCES>                                       587
<INVENTORY>                                     64,664
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               178,734
<PP&E>                                         186,740
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,058
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 371,003
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           98,539
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            82
<OTHER-SE>                                     132,965
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   371,003
<SALES>                                        116,576
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,576
<CGS>                                          102,655
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,220
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (8)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,972
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    737
<INCOME-TAX>                                       400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                337
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       337
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
Marcus Anthony TERRELL, petitioner, v. Walter BERRY, Warden.

No. 18-6276.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Eastern District of Texas

Willow Innovations, Inc.

2:23-cv-00229

Chiaro Technology, Ltd.

Chiaro Technology, Ltd.

63-66 Hatton Garden, EC1N 8LE

London, United Kingdom

Timothy S. Durst

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

2501 North Harwood Street, Suite 1700

Dallas, TX 75201

05/24/2023

Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 5 Filed 05/25/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 560
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

2:23-cv-00229

0.00

Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 5 Filed 05/25/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 561
John DAVIS, petitioner, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO., et al.

No. 18-473.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2283

To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the authorities relating

to the provision of honor guard details at funerals of veterans.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 18, 1999

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the

authorities relating to the provision of honor guard details at funerals of veterans.

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

3 SECTION 1. ENHANCEMENT OF AUTHORITIES RELATING

4 TO THE PROVISION OF HONOR GUARD DE5 TAILS AT FUNERALS OF VETERANS.

6 (a) DUTY STATUS.—Section 1491 of title 10, United

7 States Code, is amended—

8 (1) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as

9 subsections (f) and (g), respectively; and
2

•HR 2283 IH

1 (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the fol2 lowing new subsection (e):

3 ‘‘(e) RESERVE DUTY.—Performance of duty as a

4 member of an honor guard detail for the funeral of a vet5 eran, and training for such duty, by a member of a reserve

6 component may be considered to be a period of drill or

7 training in addition to training otherwise required.’’.

8 (b) RETIREMENT POINTS.—Section 12733 of title

9 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end

10 the following new paragraph:

11 ‘‘(5) One day for each day, not otherwise count12 ed under this section, on which the person per13 formed duty as a member of an honor guard detail

14 for the funeral of a veteran, or training for such

15 duty, that was considered by the Secretary con16 cerned to be a period of drill or training in addition

17 to training otherwise required.’’.

18 (c) EXEMPTION FROM END STRENGTHS.—A mem19 ber of a reserve component who is on active duty under

20 a call or order to active duty for a period of more than

21 180 days and who is retained on active duty solely for

22 the purpose of participating in honor guard details for fu23 nerals of veterans shall not during the period of such re24 tention on active duty be counted toward the active duty
3

•HR 2283 IH

1 end strength limitation for that fiscal year for that mem2 ber’s Armed Force.

3 (d) WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY IN4 SURANCE.—Section 1588(a) of title 10, United States

5 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new

6 paragraph:

7 ‘‘(4) Voluntary services under section 1491 of

8 this title to participate in an honor guard detail for

9 the funeral of a veteran.’’.

10 (e) SUPPORT OF REQUIRED STATE FUNCTIONS.—

11 Section 114 of title 32, United States Code, is amended

12 by adding at the end the following: ‘‘Such use of appro13 priated funds may include support of State law require14 ments relating to National Guard participation in funerals

15 of veterans.’’.

16 (f) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

17 this section shall apply with respect to duty performed as

18 a member of an honor guard detail for the funeral of a

19 veteran, or training for such duty, on or after the date

20 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Christopher R. GLENN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7400

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23




                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registation Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-16183)
amended as of Febraury 11, 1997 and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(No. 33-88518 and No. 33-88520) of Rouge Industries, Inc. of our report dated
January 28, 1998 appearing on Page 29 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 1997.  We also consent to the application of such
report to the Financial Statement Schedules for the three years ended December
31, 1997 listed under Item 14(a) of the Rouge Industries, Inc. Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 when such schedules are read in
conjunction with the financial statements referred to in our report.  The
audits referred to in such report also included these schedules.


PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
Detroit, Michigan
March 6, 1998
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

ALI KAFI FORD §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-349

NEDERLAND CHEMICAL, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Ali Kafi Ford, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit. This matter was

referred to the undersigned 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.

 Procedural Background

The court previously entered a Preliminary Filing Fee Order (doc. #3) directing Plaintiff to

either pay the filing fee or submit a properly certified application to proceed in forma pauperis

showing deposits into his inmate trust account during the preceding six month period. Plaintiff was

given 20 days to comply with the court’s Order. The time for complying with the Order has expired. 

However, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Order. 

Discussion

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

failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030,

1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court's inherent power to

control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v.

Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370

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

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

prosecute this lawsuit. As a result, this case should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Case 1:23-cv-00349-MAC-CLS Document 4 Filed 02/13/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 18
Recommendation

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

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

Objections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 13th day of February, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00349-MAC-CLS Document 4 Filed 02/13/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 19
Kevin DAMERON, Petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 19-6945

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 2:23-cv-00391 Document 1-3 Filed 08/29/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 37

 Eastern District of Texas

STORMSEAL USA, LLC and

SYSTEM STORMSEAL PTY LTD,

2:23-cv-391

SRS DISTRIBUTION, INC.

SRS Distribution Inc. 

7440 State Highway 121,

McKinney, Texas 75070 Ryan S. Loveless

Loveless Law Group

4760 Preston Road | No. 244-357

Frisco, TX 75034

ryan@lovelesslawgroup.com

972-292-8303 8/30/23

Case 2:23-cv-00391-JRG Document 2 Filed 08/30/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 40
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 2:23-cv-00391 Document 1-3 Filed 08/29/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 38

2:23-cv-391 0.00 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:23-cv-00391-JRG Document 2 Filed 08/30/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 41
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMITTEE OF SEVENTY, 

PHILADELPHIA 3.0, JORDAN STRAUSS, 

BRIAN KRISCH, AND KATHERINE 

RIVERA,

Petitioners

v.

THE HONORABLE SHEILA A. WOODSSKIPPER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY 

AS PRESIDENT JUDGE OF THE COURT 

OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

PHILADELPHIA,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 36 EM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of April, 2017, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process and the Application for Leave to Intervene are GRANTED. The Prothonotary is 

DIRECTED to docket the City Commissioners’ preliminary objections, as well as 

Petitioners’ answer and supporting brief. 

The Petition for Review in the Nature of Mandamus is DENIED. The Application 

to Expedite and the City Commissioners’ preliminary objections are DISMISSED. 

The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.

Justice Dougherty did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

matter.