alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

ZACHARY L. MOYE §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-360

ANGELA CHEVALIER, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Zachary L. Moye, 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

On March 26, 2024, the court entered an Order (doc. #24) directing Plaintiff to either pay

the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff was given 30 days to

comply with the court’s order. Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the court’s order on April 2, 2024

(doc. #25). However, Plaintiff has not complied with the order or otherwise contacted the court. 

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

Case 1:23-cv-00360-MAC-CLS Document 26 Filed 06/06/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

53
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 Serv. Auto. Ass’n.,

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

2

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 6th day of June, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00360-MAC-CLS Document 26 Filed 06/06/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

54
Exhibit 10(a)



 EXHIBIT (10)(a) 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 







 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in the Statement
of Additional Information, and to the use of our report dated April 11, 2012, with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements and schedules of Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the
Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-172715) under the Securities Act of 1933 and related Prospectus of Transamerica Advisor EliteSM NY Variable Annuity. 
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP 
 Des Moines, Iowa 

April 23, 2012
Andre Antonio FAIRLEY, Petitioner, v. MISSISSIPPI.

No. 19-7422

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Mississippi denied.
##### 



LodgeNet Entertainment Corporation
    
    Form 10-Q
 Exhibit 32
 LODGENET ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of LodgeNet.
 th
 /s/ Scott C. Petersen

Scott C. PetersenChief Executive Officer/s/ Gary H. Ritondaro

Gary H. RitondaroChief Financial Officer
 March 31, 2007
1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No.05-0289V

Filed: November 1, 2013

Not to be Published

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

AMY MAHONEY, parent of *

A.M., a minor, *

* Autism; Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Petitioner, *

*

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On November 1, 2013, the parties filed a Stipulation of Facts Concerning 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. After informal discussions, the parties have agreed on 

$9,750.55 in attorneys’ fees and costs and $150.00 in petitioner’s costs for a total of 

$9,900.55. In lieu of filing a Vaccine General Order #9 statement, petitioner’s counsel 

represents that petitioner had $150.00 in costs that petitioner personally incurred that 

are compensable under § 15 (e)(1). 

The request for attorneys’ fees and costs is granted. Petitioner is awarded 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to §§ 15(b) and (e)(1), as I find that the 

petition was brought in good faith and upon a reasonable basis, and the amounts 

requested are reasonable and appropriate. 

 

1

 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, 

I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in 

accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 

18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, that 

satisfies the criteria in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule 

requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, 

I agree that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, I will redact such 

material from public access.
2

Accordingly, I hereby award the total amount of $9,900.55 as follows:

 a lump sum of $9,750.55, in the form of a check payable jointly to 

petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C.;

and

 a lump sum of $150.00, in the form of a check payable solely to 

petitioner.

In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of 

the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the Clerk of the court shall enter 

judgment in accordance herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Denise K. Vowell

Denise K. Vowell

Chief Special Master

 

2

 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to 

seek review. See Vaccine Rule 11(a).
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DANIEL GIMBEL, PHYLLIS ARKY, and HARRISON GIMBEL,

Appellants,

v.

EUGENE ARKY and BABETTE ARKY,

Appellees.

No. 4D2022-2816

[June 6, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Charles E. Burton, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2020-CP001374-XXXX-SB.

Sommer C. Horton of Horton Law Group, P.A., Boca Raton, for 

appellants.

James G. Pressly, Jr., of Pressly, Pressly, Randolph & Pressly, P.A., 

Palm Beach, for appellee Eugene Arky. 

Brett C. Barner, Robb W. Armstrong, and Hunter R. Scharf of Barner 

& Barner, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellee Babette Arky.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Jeremy L. DALE, Petitioner, v. Anthony AGRESTA, et al.

No. 19-7036

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 of Cadus  Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending  September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Michele A. Paige,
President and Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

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

 /s/ Michele A. Paige
----------------------------------------------
Michele A. Paige
President and Chief Executive Officer (Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer)
November 13, 2003

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


                                       1
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 04/02/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      158,589
COMMITMENTS
  40,213   34,471   20,131   80,862   79,209  141,206  133,811   17,383   24,778

CHANGES FROM 03/26/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -8,658)
    -743   -3,280   -3,492   -2,966     -427   -7,201   -7,199   -1,457   -1,459

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    25.4     21.7     12.7     51.0     49.9     89.0     84.4     11.0     15.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      196)
      49       47       42       63       73      135      145
```

----

Updated April 5, 2013
David Jerold SHANK, petitioner, v. CORIZON HEALTH SERVICES, et al.

No. 17-8856.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
SOUTH CAROLINA, petitioner, v. Raymond Lewis YOUNG.

No. 18-352.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of South Carolina denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 27, 2009 

0120 

Order 

 

January 27, 2009 

137276 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137276 

 COA: 278578 

Wayne CC: 07-005403-01 

JEROME ANTHONY YOUNG, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 29, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                           7,454
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,324
<ALLOWANCES>                                       174
<INVENTORY>                                      3,054
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,121
<PP&E>                                           4,266
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,316
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,029
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,500
<COMMON>                                            70
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,465
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,210
<SALES>                                         11,309
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,309
<CGS>                                            5,065
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,065
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (251)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,715)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,715)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,715)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to
U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Stephen T. Wills, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Palatin Technologies, Inc., hereby certify, to my
knowledge, that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2004
of Palatin Technologies, Inc. (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Palatin Technologies, Inc.

|Dated:  February 9, 2005 | /s/ Stephen T. WillsStephen T. WillsExecutive Vice President
     and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
|------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2208 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2208

To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain light absorbing photo dye.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 1999

 Mr. Hayworth introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain light absorbing photo dye.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.29.36      Benzenesulfonic     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/
                         acid, 4- chloro-3-                                                 31/2003          ''.
                         [4-[[4-
                         (dimethylamino)
                         phenyl]methylene-
                         4,5- dihydro-3-
                         methyl-5-oxo-1H-
                         pyrazol-1-l],
                         compound with
                         Pyridine 1:1
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2934.90.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the date that is 15 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
`DTCC Repo-US Treasury <30 YR - NYSE LIFFE - NYPC                     Code-045L2T
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 04/16/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000)                            OPEN INTEREST:       53,478
COMMITMENTS
   3,056    4,271    2,496   47,466   46,342   53,018   53,109      460      369

CHANGES FROM 04/09/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      1,751)
     630     -128      330    2,339    3,423    3,299    3,625   -1,548   -1,874

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     5.7      8.0      4.7     88.8     86.7     99.1     99.3      0.9      0.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       44)
       6        6        5       25       23       33       32`

---

Updated April 19, 2013
Exhibit 32.2








Certification of President and Co Chief Executive Officer








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Century Casinos, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








Date:  November 9, 2010








/s/ Peter Hoetzinger


Peter Hoetzinger


President and Co Chief Executive Officer
James Michael WILLIAMS, Petitioner v. Daniel PARAMO, Warden, et al.

No. 19-5650

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
#### Victoria Colon, Respondent, *v.*Automatic Retailers Association Service, Inc., Also Known as Ara Service, Inc., Appellant, and British Overseas Airways Corporation, Also Known as BOAC, Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff. Collins M. Ward et al., Third-Party Defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

July 27, 1973.

*666*Mele & Cullen (Joseph D. Ahearn*of counsel), for appellant. *Schneider, Kleinick, Weitz & Damashek (Lewis I. Wolf*of counsel), for Victoria Colon, respondent. *Chadbourne, Parke, Whiteside & Wolff (Edward F. Hayes, III, Paul G. Pennoyer, Jr.,*and *Frank A. Sherer, Jr.,*of counsel), for British Overseas Airways Corporation, respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The introduction into evidence of photographs of the accident site showing subsequent alterations coupled with plaintiff’s arguments that the lack of such alterations as of the date of the accident constituted negligence was prejudicial error. (See *Cahill*v. *Kleinberg,*233 N. Y. 255; *Frummer*v. *Hilton Hotels Int.,*60 Misc 2d 840.)

The award of judgment to British Overseas Airways Corporation on its cross claim for indemnification was improper in view of the lack of proof that the obligation for which indemnification was sought had been paid. (See *Hevro Realty Co.*v. *Olaya,*N. Y. L. J., Aug. 6, 1971, p. 2, col. 1 [App. Term, 1st Dept.]; *379 Madison Ave., Inc.*v. *Stuyvesant Co.,*242 App. Div. 567, affd. 268 N. Y. 576.)

Judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant-appellant should be reversed and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event. Judgment in favor of defendant British Overseas Airways Corporation on its cross claim against defendant-appellant reversed and cross claim ¡should be dismissed as premature without prejudice, with $30 costs to appellant.

Concur — Markowitz, P. J., Lupiano and Quinn, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 30 , 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00203

- CV

MOODY & MOLINA , Appellant

V.
LONG BA NGUYEN, INDI VIDUALLY AND LAN N. HUYNH,

INDIVIDUALLY , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 125th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010

- 19509A

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed February 18, 2013 . On April 23,

2013 , appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Busby.
William Henry STARRETT, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et al.

No. 18-1574

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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