alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

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

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

July 16, 2021

t0714 

# Order

Clerk July 16, 2021

159450 (97)

LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY SHERBOW, PC,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 159450

COA: 338997

Oakland CC: 2015

- 147488

- CB

FIEGER & FIEGER, PC, d/b/a FIEGER, FIEGER,

KENNEY & HARRINGTON, PC,

Defendant

- Appellant.

__________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rehearing of the Court’s June 9, 2021

opinion is consi dered, and it is DENIED.
PRISON LEGAL NEWS, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 18-355.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

*796Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

AUTHOR J. MANNING, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

PARAMOUNT, DISH NETWORK, 

DIRECT TV, AT&T, VIACOM CBS,

COX CABLE, & SONY,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23-CV-00444-

JDK

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Author J. Manning, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed this copyright action 

against Defendant Paramount in state court on May 9, 2023. Docket No. 3. 

Paramount removed the case to federal court. Docket No. 3. Plaintiff subsequently 

amended his complaint, adding multiple new defendants. Docket No. 11. The case 

was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. Docket No. 5. 

On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff Manning filed a motion for temporary 

restraining order, requesting that the Court freeze Defendants’ assets for the full 

amount of damages sought. Docket No. 28. On December 4, 2023, Judge Love issued 

a Report recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order 

be denied. Docket No. 34. No objections to the Report were filed, and the period in 

which to do so has passed. See L.R. CV-7(e). 

Case 6:23-cv-00444-JDK-JDL Document 41 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 256
2

Because objections to Judge Love’s Report have not been filed, Plaintiff is 

barred from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of 

the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and 

adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 

1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the 

Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of 

the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S. Ct. 3243 (1989) (holding that where no 

objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly 

erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

(Docket No. 34) is ADOPTED and that Plaintiff’s motion (Docket No. 28) is

DENIED. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4th January, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00444-JDK-JDL Document 41 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 257
Miguel A. JARAMILLO, petitioner, v. NEW YORK.

No. 17-8909.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Judicial Department denied.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

ENGINEERED CORROSION SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Appellant

v.

SOUTH

- TEK SYSTEMS, L LC, POTTER ELECTRIC

CO, LLC,

Appellees

______________________

2018

- 1685

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016

- 01351.

______________________

JUDG MENT

______________________

B ENJAMIN A ARON S AIDMAN

, Finnegan, Henderson,

Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for

appellant. Also represented by J ASON E. S TACH

.

D AVID E. B ENNETT

, Coats & Bennett, PLLC, Cary, NC,

argued for appellees. Also represented by E DWARD H.

G REEN

, III

, B RANDEE W OOLARD

.

______________________T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (D YK

, M OORE

, and T ARANTO

, Circuit

Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

May 9, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

AUTOSCRIBE CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v. 

REPAY HOLDINGS CORPORATION, 

REPAY HOLDINGS, LLC, M&A 

VENTURES, LLC,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00349-JRG

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants Repay Holdings Corporation and Repay Holdings, LLC’s 

(collectively, “Repay”) Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (the “Motion to Seal”). 

(Dkt. No. 47). In the Motion to Seal, Repay requests to file their Brief in Support of their Motion 

to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue or, In the Alternative, To Transfer 

Venue (Dkt. No. 47-2) and the accompanying exhibits (Dkt. Nos. 47-3 – 47-7) (the “Reply and 

Exhibits”) under seal because they “include highly confidential business information subject to a 

non-disclosure agreement and other confidential business information.” (Dkt. No. 47 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 ORDERED that Repay

may file the Reply and Exhibits under seal.

Case 2:23-cv-00349-JRG Document 48 Filed 01/23/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1466
2

____________________________________

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of January, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-00349-JRG Document 48 Filed 01/23/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1467
Exh 10.3 Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation


Exhibit 10.3


Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation


Each non-employee member of our Board of Directors currently receives the following cash compensation:


		
	•
	an annual retainer of $15,000 for service on the Board of Directors ($30,000 for service as non-executive Chairman of the Board of Directors), prorated for any partial year of service;




		
	•
	an annual retainer of $2,500 for service on each committee of the Board of Directors of which he or she is a member ($5,000 for service as chairman of any such committee), prorated for any partial year of service;




		
	•
	a fee of $2,500 for each meeting of the Board of Directors that he or she attends in person ($500 for each telephonic meeting of the Board of Directors in which he or she participates); and




		
	•
	a fee of $1,000 for each committee meeting that he or she attends in person other than in connection with a meeting of the full Board of Directors ($500 for each telephonic committee meeting in which he or she participates).




All directors are reimbursed for expenses in connection with attendance at Board of Directors and committee meetings.


Our Non-Employee Directors' Equity Incentive Plan provides for the grant of stock options and restricted stock awards to our non-employee directors.  Non-employee directors elected for the first time receive an initial option to purchase 30,000 shares of common stock.  In addition, all non-employee directors who have served in such capacity for six months receive (a) an annual option to purchase 20,000 shares of common stock and (b) an annual restricted stock award of the number of shares of our common stock having a fair market value on the date of grant of $20,000, rounded down to the nearest whole share number.  All stock options granted under the non-employee directors' plan have an exercise price equal to the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant.
ex_138071.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 


AMENDMENT No. 5a TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment No. 5a to the Executive Employment Agreement (“Amendment No. 5a”) is entered into as of March 15, 2019 and shall be effective as of March 16, 2019 (the “Effective Date”) by and between PetMed Express, Inc. (“PetMed” or the “Company”) and Menderes Akdag (the “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, PetMed and the Executive entered into an Executive Employment Agreement dated March 16, 2001 (“Executive Employment Agreement”), which was subsequently amended by Amendment No. 1 to Executive Employment Agreement on March 16, 2004, Amendment No. 2 to the Executive Employment Agreement on February 27, 2007 with an effective date of March 16, 2007, Amendment No. 3 to the Executive Employment Agreement on February 8, 2010 with an effective date of March 16, 2010, Amendment No. 4 to the Executive Employment Agreement on January 25, 2013 with an effective date of March 16, 2013, and Amendment No. 5 to the Executive Employment Agreement on January 29, 2016 with an effective date of March 16, 2016 (collectively with the Executive Employment Agreement shall be referred to as the “Agreement”), which Agreement is due to expire on March 16, 2019, and PetMed and the Executive wish to further amend the Agreement.


 


 NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed as follows:


 


So much of Section 4 of the Agreement, which reads “The Term of employment hereunder will commence on March 16, 2016 and will end on March 16, 2019...” is hereby revised to read “The Term of employment hereunder will commence on March 16, 2019 and will end on May 13, 2019 or earlier if further amended by the parties...”


 


Except as expressly provided in this Amendment No. 5a, all other terms, conditions and provisions of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect as provided therein.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment No. 5a as of the date set forth in the first paragraph above.


 


PetMed Express, Inc.


 


 


By:  /s/ Robert C. Schweitzer             


       Robert C. Schweitzer


       Chairman of the Board


 


Executive


 


 


 /s/ Menderes Akdag                            


Menderes Akdag
EXHIBIT A 

Case 2:23-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 104-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID

#: 1632
9

III. INTERROGATORIES

Interrogatory No. 1:

State in detail the development, implementation, and updates to the Network Architecture(s) that 

pertain to or enable the Accused Functionality in the United States. Your answer should identify 

the persons involved in designing and implementing the relevant Network Architecture 

components, the relevant dates (including when the decision was made to implement the Accused 

Functionality, when the Accused Functionality was actually implemented, and any development 

milestones in between), why You decided to implement the Accused Functionality, and a narrative 

description explaining the interrelationship between the relevant Network Architecture 

components that operate to enable the Accused Functionality.

Interrogatory No. 2:

Identify, by name and model number (including any third party vendor name, any internal or third 

party model number(s) and/or any commercial name(s)), all hardware and/or software components 

in any Network Architecture made, sold, operated, utilized, or otherwise provided by You that 

implements, in whole or part, the Accused Functionality in the United States. For each component 

identified, please identify (a) the cellular network standard(s) (e.g., 4G, 4G LTE, 5G) for which 

the component is utilized; (b) how the component contributes to implementation of the Accused 

Functionality in Your network; (c) the manufacturer of the component; (d) the date on which the 

component was installed in Your network; (e) the date on which the component was removed from 

Your network (if applicable); (f) the date(s), if any, on which any software on the component was 

installed, updated and/or changed, and the version number(s) for any such software; and (g) to the 

extent You contend any such installation, update and/or change impacts whether or not the 

component practices any elements of the Asserted Claims, please provide any factual basis for that 

contention.

Interrogatory No. 3:

With respect to each component identified by You in response to interrogatory number 2, identify 

all costs associated with the component, including, but not limited to, all upfront costs, all ongoing 

costs, and all maintenance costs.

Interrogatory No. 4:

Identify the date that You contend is the date for the hypothetical negotiation under GeorgiaPacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp. and describe why You contend that is the proper date. 

Interrogatory No. 5:

Identify every entity that You have asserted has an obligation to indemnify You for damages, costs, 

and/or fees related to this lawsuit, and identify all documents (e.g., letters, emails, agreements) 

relating to that indemnity by Bates number.

Case 2:23-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 104-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID

#: 1633
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

versus

AHMED ABDALLA ALLAM

 

§

§

§

§

§

NO. 1:23-CR-00010

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the court is Defendant Ahmed Abdalla Allam’s Motion to Suppress 

Evidence (“Motion to Suppress” or “Motion”) (#21). On February 9, 2023, the court referred 

Allam’s Motion to Suppress to United States Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn (#21). On

February 17, 2023, the Government filed a response in opposition (#30). On March 20, 2023, 

Judge Hawthorn held a hearing on the motion. 

On April 24, 2023, Judge Hawthorn issued his Report and Recommendation (#42), 

recommending that the court deny Allam’s Motion to Suppress. On May 8, 2023, Allam filed 

his Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#45).

A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to 

which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)–(3). 

“Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings [to which they object]. 

Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles 

v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by 

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

The court has conducted a de novo determination of Judge Hawthorn’s Report and 

Case 1:23-cr-00010-MAC-ZJH Document 46 Filed 05/10/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 856
2

Recommendation and has carefully considered Allam’s objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); 

E.D. TEX. CRIM. R. 59(d). After careful consideration, the court finds that Judge Hawthorn 

correctly concluded that Allam’s Motion to Suppress should be denied, and that Allam’s 

objections are without merit. 

It is therefore ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge 

(#42) is ADOPTED. Defendant Ahmed Abdalla Allam’s Motion to Suppress Evidence (#21) is 

DENIED.

________________________________________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 10th day of May, 2023.

Case 1:23-cr-00010-MAC-ZJH Document 46 Filed 05/10/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 857
Mohamed ELSHINAWY, aka Mojoe, aka Mo Jo, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7207

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
W. Scott HARKONEN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-417.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 22, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00712

- CV

Luis BATRES and Nelda Ojeda

- Batres, individually and as parents and next f riend of Brandon Batres, Deceased

, Appellant

- s

v.

ALAMO CITY HARLEY DAVIDSON, INC. , aka Cowboy Motorsports of San Antonio, LLC d/b/a Alamo City Harley Davidson/Buel,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2 014

- CI

- 15792 Honorable Renée Yanta, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

T he district clerk has filed a notification of late record stating that the clerk’s record has

not be en filed because appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record and appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee.

Accordingly , it is ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court within ten days of the date of this order that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the cle rk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. If appellant fail s to respond within the time provided, this appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 37.3(b).

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of December, 2 016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40291 Summary Calendar

MICHAEL WAYNE FIELDS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BETRECIA L. DAVIS, CO to Michael Unit; WILLIAM R. WATTS, Captain at Michael Unit; GREGORY HAYNES, Sergeant at Michael Unit,
Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:96-CV-952

- - - - - - - - - - October 19, 1998 Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Mic hael Wayne Fields, Texas prisoner #645761, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as
frivolous. He argues that a false disciplinary report was filed
against him, that one of the officers instructed that the false

report be filed in retaliation of Fields’s numerous lawsuits
against prison officials, and t hat another prison official based

his determination that Fields should be disciplined on no evidence.

Fields has filed numerous lawsuits which have been dismissedas frivolous, for which Fields has either exhausted or waived his

appeal. S ee Fields v. Adams , No. 97-41108 (5th Cir. Feb. 5,
1998)(unpublished)(dismissal of appeal from district court’s

dismissal of complaint as frivolous); Fields v. Johnson , No. 97-

40822 (5t h Cir. Nov. 13, 1997) (unpublished)(dismissal of appeal

from district court’s dismissal of complaint as frivolous); Fields

v. Collins , No. 96-40752 (5th Cir. Dec. 3,
1996)(unpublished)(dismissal of appeal from district court’s
dismissal of complaint as frivolous); see also Fields v. Johnson ,
No. 6:97-CV-336 (E.D. Tex. June 2, 1997)(unpublished) (dismissal of
complaint as frivolous).

Fields is barred from filing any pleadings in forma pauperis

.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); A depedba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387
(5th Cir. 199 6). Fields has not made any showing that he was in
imminent danger of serious physical injury. See
§ 1915(g); Banos v. O’Guin , 144 F.3d 883, 884-85 (5th Cir. 1998).
His appeal is DISMISSED. Fields may reinstate this appeal if he

pays the filing fee of $105 to the cler k of the district court
within 30 days of the date of this opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

CHARLES E. BUTCHER, II, #01745368 §

§

Petitioner, §

§

v. § Case No. 6:23-cv-046-JDK-JDL

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Charles E. Butcher, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice 

prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love

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

case. 

On October 4, 2023, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the 

petition be denied on the merits, that this action be dismissed with prejudice, and 

that a certificate of appealability be denied. Docket No. 6. A copy of this Report was 

sent to Petitioner, who received it on October 23, 2023, and has not filed written 

objections. Docket No. 7.

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation. 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire 

record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United 

1

Case 6:23-cv-00046-JDK-JDL Document 8 Filed 12/01/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 26
Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other 

grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from 

ten to fourteen days). 

Here, Petitioner did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore 

reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and 

reviews his legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 

918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the 

standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 

the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to 

law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 6) as the findings of this Court. 

Petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus is hereby DENIED and DISMISSED with 

prejudice. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. All pending motions are 

DENIED as MOOT. 

2

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1st December, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00046-JDK-JDL Document 8 Filed 12/01/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 27