alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                           6,823
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    381,893
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               399,348
<PP&E>                                       1,268,067
<DEPRECIATION>                                  93,842
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,360,675
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,316,748
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,617,796
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,948,368
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,894,131
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     3
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  346,431
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              56,108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (402,536)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (402,536)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
Attorney or Party without Attorney: For Court Use Only 

Marc Fenster (SBN 181067) 

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT 

12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90025 

Telephone No: 310-826-7474 

Attorney For: Plaintiff 

~

,ef No. or File No.: 

608-003 

Insert name of Court, and Judicial District and Branch Court: 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION 

Plaintiff: Headwater Research LLC 

Defendant: AT&T Inc., et al. 

PROOF OF SERVICE I Hearing Date: I Time: I Dept/Div: Case Number: 

2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP 

1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 

2. I served copies of the Summons in a Civil Action; Complaint; Civil Case Cover Sheet; Plaintiff's Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement; 

Report on the Filing or Determination of an Action Regarding a Patent or Trademark; Notice of Related Cases; Notice of 

Designation of Lead Counsel 

3. a. Party served: AT&T Inc. 

b. Person served: George Martinez, authorized to accept for CT Corporation System, agent for service of process 

served under F.R.C.P. Rule 4. 

4. Address where the party was served: 1999 Bryan St Suite 900, Dallas, TX 75201 

5. I served the party: 

a. by personal service. I personally delivered the documents listed in item 2 to the party or person authorized to receive 

process for the party (1) on: Thu, Sep 07 2023 (2) at: 02:45 PM 

6. Person Who Served Papers: 

a. Tony Collins 

b. FIRST LEGAL 

1 517 W. Beverly Blvd. 

LOS ANGELES, CA 90026 

c. (213) 250-1111 

d. The Fee for Service was: $348.54 

7. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoi 

m 

HR5Tl.EGAI. 

09/08/2023 

PROOF OF 

SERVICE 

(Date) (Signature) 

9519522 

(5433042) 

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 09/14/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 286
No. 6:23-cv-00150

Fred A. Dixon, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Joe Biden et al.,

Defendants.

ORD ER

Plaintiff Fred A. Dixon, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed this civilrights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred 

to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b). Doc. 3. 

On April 5, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that plaintiff’s lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Doc. 3. A copy 

of the report was mailed to plaintiff, who received it on April 21, 

2023, and did not file written objections. Doc. 4.

When no party objects to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for clear error. See Douglass 

v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and being satisfied that it 

contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. For the reasons stated in the report, plaintiff’s complaint is 

dismissed with prejudice for purposes of in forma pauperis proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff may resume his lawsuit if he pays the entire filing fee of $402 within thirty days after the 

entry of the final judgment. 

So ordered by the court on June 28, 2023.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00150-JCB-JDL Document 15 Filed 06/28/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 36
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

v. 

T-MOBILE US, INC., T-MOBILE USA, 

INC., and SPRINT CORP.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-379-JRG-RSP

(Lead Case)

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

v. 

T-MOBILE US, INC., T-MOBILE USA, 

INC., and SPRINT CORP.

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-377-JRG-RSP

(Member Case)

ORDER

Before the Court is the Agreed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of 

Defendant T-Mobile US, Inc. (the “Motion”) filed by Headwater Research LLC (“Plaintiff”) and 

Defendants T-Mobile US, Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc., and Sprint Corp. (collectively, the “Parties”). 

(Dkt. No. 46). In the Motion, the Parties request dismissal of Defendant T-Mobile US, Inc. from 

the above-captioned cases WITHOUT prejudice pursuant to FRCP 21 on the ground that it is not 

a proper party to these actions. (Id. at 1).

Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED.

Accordingly, all claims and causes of action asserted between Plaintiff and Defendant T-Mobile

US, Inc. in the above-captioned cases are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party is 

to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees. All pending requests for relief in the abovecaptioned cases between only Plaintiff and Defendant T-Mobile US, Inc. not explicitly granted 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 02/06/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 422
2

herein are DENIED AS MOOT. It is further ORDERED that the above caption be revised to 

remove Defendant T-Mobile US, Inc.

The Clerk of Court is directed to MAINTAIN AS OPEN the above-captioned cases as 

other parties and claims remain.

So Ordered this

Feb 6, 2024

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 02/06/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 423
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

ANDRE’A D. JOHNSON §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-323

USP BEAUMONT, et al., §

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff, Andre’a D. Johnson, an inmate confined atUSP Beaumont, proceeding pro se, filed

this Bivens-type action1against Defendants USP Beaumont, USP Beaumont Medical Department,

I. Benitez, FNU Hernandez, and FNU Carson.

TheCourtreferred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate

Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. 

The magistrate judge recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s claims for want of prosecution pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) [Dkt. 8]. 

The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, and pleadings. No objections

to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge have been filed to date.

ORDER

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct,

and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in accordance 

with the recommendations of the magistrate judge.

1 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 22nd day of February, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00323-MJT-CLS Document 9 Filed 02/22/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 22
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WILLIAM J. WILSON,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2015-7006

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-987, Chief Judge Bruce E. 

Kasold.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

William J. Wilson moves for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis.

Upon consideration thereof,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted.

Case: 15-7006 Document: 3 Page: 1 Filed: 10/16/2014
2 WILSON v. MCDONALD

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s21

Case: 15-7006 Document: 3 Page: 2 Filed: 10/16/2014
EXHIBIT 11

                            Wireless One, Inc.
         Statement re: Computation of Ratio of Per Share Earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           Year Ended December 31,
                             --------------------------------------------------
                                  1994               1995             1996
                             --------------    --------------   ---------------
<S>                          <C>               <C>              <C>
Net loss                     $  (2,261,813)    $  (7,692,474)   $  (39,670,395)

Preferred stock dividends
  and discount accretion                 -          (786,389)                -
                             -------------     -------------    --------------
Net loss applicable to
  common stock                  (2,261,813)       (8,478,863)      (39,670,395)
                             =============     =============    ==============
  Weighted average common
    shares outstanding           1,863,512         4,187,736        14,961,934
                             =============     =============    ==============
Net loss per common share            (1.21)            (2.02)            (2.65)
                             =============     =============    ==============

The above earnings per share (EPS) calculations are submitted in accordance
with APB Opinion No.15.

An EPS Calculation in accordance with Regulation S-K item 601 (b)(11) is not
shown above because it produces an antidilutive result.

The  following  information is  disclosed  for  purposes of  calculating the
antidilutive EPS.

  Weighted average common
    shares outstanding           1,863,512         4,187,736        14,961,934

  Shares issuable upon
    exercise of options
    and warrants                   248,917           306,815           507,407
                             -------------     -------------    --------------
  Weighted average shares
    outstanding                  2,112,429         4,494,551        15,469,341
                             =============     =============    ==============
  Net loss per common share          (1.07)            (1.71)            (2.56)
                             =============     =============    ==============
</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

647 

CAF 10-00514 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF ZACHARY T. 

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

GENESEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 

ALAN D.T., SR., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

MARY ANN BLIZNIK, CLARENCE, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

PAULA A. CAMPBELL, BATAVIA, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

LINDA M. JONES, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BATAVIA, FOR ZACHARY T. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R.

Adams, J.), entered February 1, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 10. The order, inter alia, adjudged that the

subject child is a neglected child. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order that, inter

alia, adjudicated the child who is the subject of this proceeding to

be a neglected child. We conclude that Family Court properly

determined following a fact-finding hearing that the father neglected

the child by failing to protect him from being sexually abused by his

older brother and his cousin. The child’s older brother testified

that the father was aware of their sexual activity but took no action

to prevent it from continuing. That testimony was corroborated by

sworn statements that the child made to a police investigator. Under

the circumstances, the court properly concluded that petitioner

established by a preponderance of the evidence that the sexual abuse

to which the child was subjected was “a consequence of the failure of

the [father] . . . to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing

the child with proper supervision or guardianship” (Nicholson v

Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368). 

We reject the father’s contention that the court erred in

determining that the child was derivatively neglected as a result of

the father’s sexual abuse of his nephew, whose family shared a house

with the father and his family during the relevant time period. We

conclude that the father was the “functional equivalent of a parent in

a familial or household setting” with respect to his nephew (Matter of

Yolanda D., 88 NY2d 790, 796), and that his nephew was therefore “the
-2- 647 

CAF 10-00514 

legal responsibility of” the father within the meaning of Family Court

Act § 1046 (a) (i). 

Entered: June 17, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 1 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 93-1 Filed 10/10/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 6240
EXHIBIT 1

Patent Family Tree

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 93-1 Filed 10/10/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 6241
**EXHIBIT 23.02**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-84726,33-84728, 333-25981, and 333-114019 on Form S-8 ofour report dated March 28, 2006, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Gaming Partners International Corporation (formerly known as Paul-Son GamingCorporation) and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2006.
| /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP |
|------------------------------------|
| Las Vegas, Nevada                  |
| May 14, 2007                  |

 

----
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

INTERCURRENCY SOFTWARE LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

BINANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED, 

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-cv-370 [JRG]

Jury Trial Demanded

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT BINANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

Before the Court is Defendant Binance Holdings Limited’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff 

Intercurrency Software LLC’s Complaint for failure to state a viable claim pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court, having read and considered the Motion, finds that it 

should be, and is hereby, GRANTED. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned action is dismissed with prejudice.

Case 2:23-cv-00370-JRG Document 17-4 Filed 03/22/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 101
Michael BLANKENSHIP, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7138

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.
Kurt Robert SMITH, petitioner, v. Anna VALENTINE, Warden.

No. 18-671.

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.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1953

AN ACT

To authorize leases for terms not to exceed 99

years on land held in trust for the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians and the GuidivilleBand of Pomo Indians of the Guidiville IndianRancheria.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1953

AN ACT

To authorize leases for terms not to exceed 99 years on

land held in trust for the Torres Martinez Desert

Cahuilla Indians and the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians of the Guidiville Indian Rancheria.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1953 EH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF 99-YEAR LEASES.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The first section of the Act enti3 tled ‘‘An Act to authorize the leasing of restricted Indian

4 lands for public, religious, educational, residential, busi5 ness, and other purposes requiring the grant of long-term

6 leases’’, approved August 9, 1955 (25 U.S.C. 415(a)), is

7 amended by inserting ‘‘lands held in trust for the Torres

8 Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, lands held in trust for

9 the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians of the Guidiville In10 dian Rancheria, lands held in trust for the Confederated

11 Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation’’ after ‘‘Sparks

12 Indian Colony,’’.

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

14 subsection (a) shall apply to any lease entered into or re15 newed after the date of the enactment of this Act.

16 SEC. 2. REVOCATION OF CHARTER OF INCORPORATION.

17 The request of the Stockbridge-Munsee Community

18 of Wisconsin to surrender the charter of incorporation

19 issued to the Community on May 21, 1938, pursuant to

20 section 17 of the Act of June 18, 1934, (commonly known
3

•HR 1953 EH

1 as the ‘‘Indian Reorganization Act’’) is hereby accepted

2 and that charter of incorporation is hereby revoked.

Passed the House of Representatives November 17,

1999.

Attest:

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the audited
financial  statements  for the year ended  December 31, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial  statements.  Prior years  financial
data schedules have not been restated  because there would be no change in basic
and diluted EPS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000917770
<NAME>                        FIBERCORE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                         US$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,128
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      970
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (33)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,057
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,591
<PP&E>                                           6,559
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,751)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,107
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,500
<BONDS>                                          9,851
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,503
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,107
<SALES>                                          7,078
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,104
<CGS>                                            5,702
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   234
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 664
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,078)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,078)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,078)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.09)
        


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC CO., LTD and

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00285-JRG-RSP

ORDER

Before the Court is the Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions 

filed by Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Dkt. 

No. 59. After consideration, and noting its unopposed nature, the Motion is GRANTED. It is

ORDERED that Samsung has leave to amend their invalidity contentions to add the 

references described in the Motion.

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 60 Filed 07/15/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 5171
No. 6:23-cv-00409

Timothy James Lowe,

Plaintiff,

v.

Gregg County Jail,

Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff Timothy James Lowe, an inmate of the Gregg County 

Jail proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States 

Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

On December 14, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice due to 

plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order to file an amended 

complaint that cures deficiencies in the original pleading. Doc. 9. A 

copy of the report was mailed to the plaintiff, but he did not file written objections.

When no party objects to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for clear error. See Douglass 

v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (en 

banc). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and 

recommendation. This case is dismissed without prejudice.

So ordered by the court on January 25, 2024.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00409-JCB-JDL Document 10 Filed 01/25/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 22