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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

CHRIS REMLEY

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NUMBER 4:23-CR-00263-ALM

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ON 

GUILTY PLEA BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b), this matter has been referred by the District Court for 

administration of a plea of guilty under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

On December 18, 2023, this cause came before the undersigned United States Magistrate 

Judge for a plea of guilty to an Information charging Defendant in Count One with a violation of 

Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A) – Engaging in the Business Without a License (Firearms). 

After conducting said proceeding in the form and manner prescribed by FED. R. CRIM. P.

11, the undersigned finds that: 

a. Defendant, after consultation with counsel of record, has knowingly and voluntarily

consented to the administration of the Guilty Plea in this cause by a United States Magistrate Judge, 

subject to a final acceptance and imposition of sentence by the District Judge; 

b. Defendant and the government have entered into a plea agreement which has been

filed and disclosed in open court pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(2);

c. Defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea, that

Defendant is aware of the nature of the charges, the maximum penalties, and the consequences of 

the plea, and that the plea of guilty is a knowing and voluntary plea supported by an independent 

Case 4:23-cr-00263-ALM-AGD Document 11 Filed 12/27/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 27
basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense; and

d. Defendant understands each of the constitutional and statutory rights enumerated 

in Rule 11(b) and wishes to waive these rights, including the right to a trial by jury.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the District Court accept the Plea 

Agreement and the Guilty Plea of the Defendant, and that Defendant should be finally adjudged 

guilty of that offense.

Defendant waived the right to object to the findings of the Magistrate Judge in this matter, 

and the Government also waived its right to object, so the court will present this Report and 

Recommendation to the District Judge for adoption immediately upon issuance.

Case 4:23-cr-00263-ALM-AGD Document 11 Filed 12/27/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 28
James Jacob PARRISH, Jr., Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9578

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
IN THE 

### SUPREME COURT OF 

### PENNSYLVANIA In the 

### Matterof : No. 2570 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 MILES K. KARSON, JR. : Board File No. 

### C4-16-957

: 

### (Mercer County CourtofCommon Pleas, : No. 

### CP-43-CR-2154-2017)
: 

### Attorney Registration No. 

### 20916
: 

### (Mercer County) ORDER PER

### CURIAM AND NOW, this 11thday ofMarch, 2019, having indicatedthat he has no

### objection to being placed on 

### temporary suspension, the Rule is made absolute, and Miles K. Karson, Jr., is 

### temporarily suspended. See Pa.R.D.E. 214(d)(2). He shall 

### comply with all the 

### provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

CARL WAYNE HITE, JR.,

Defendant.

NO. 1:23CR103

ORDER DENYING HYBRID MOTION

Pending before the court is the Defendant’s Pro Se Motion For Leave to File Motion to 

Suppress (Dkt. # 68). However, the Defendant is currently represented by counsel. So long as 

he is represented by counsel, the Defendant must appear through counsel and should cease filing 

papers directly with the clerk. United States v. Williams, 667 F. App’x 489 (5th Cir. 

2016); United States v. Daniels, 572 F.2d 535, 540 (5th Cir. 1978) (holding that a criminal 

defendant does not have the right to “hybrid representation”—representation partly by counsel 

and partly by himself).

Thus, the Defendant’s motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 26th day of September, 2024.

Case 1:23-cr-00103-MAC-ZJH Document 69 Filed 09/26/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 205
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 08/20/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      444,632
COMMITMENTS
 105,400  221,717   81,894  232,444  114,177  419,738  417,788   24,894   26,844

CHANGES FROM 08/13/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      3,046)
    -959    2,214    3,855    2,744   -2,139    5,640    3,930   -2,594     -884

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    23.7     49.9     18.4     52.3     25.7     94.4     94.0      5.6      6.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      182)
      52       79       76       37       39      134      156
```

----

Updated August 23, 2013
Chad AUSTIN, Petitioner, v. Timothy STEWART, Warden.

No. 18-9499

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 07, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 52-11 Filed 08/06/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 846
Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 52-11 Filed 08/06/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 847
Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 52-11 Filed 08/06/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 848
Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 52-11 Filed 08/06/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 849
Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 52-11 Filed 08/06/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 850
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                            8845
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    33110
<ALLOWANCES>                                      3850
<INVENTORY>                                      49421
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                111046
<PP&E>                                           53272
<DEPRECIATION>                                   24105
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  168730
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            39712
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           242
<OTHER-SE>                                       85336
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    168730
<SALES>                                          37413
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 37413
<CGS>                                            26877
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    26877
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 15174
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 868
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5457)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2183)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3274)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3274)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
        

</TABLE>
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

12/29/2023

Case 2:23-cv-00635-JRG-RSP Document 5 Filed 12/29/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 49
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-00635-JRG-RSP Document 5 Filed 12/29/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 50
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Joseph J. Lodovic, IV, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of MediaNews Group, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: March 30, 2006        /s/Joseph J. Lodovic, IV   Joseph J. Lodovic, IV
Reshaud Todd BROWN, Petitioner, v. WASHINGTON.

No. 18-9238.

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 denied.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEXCOM, INC.,

Defendant.

C.A. No. 2:23-cv-00589-JRG-RSP

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DECLARATION OF DOLORES SEXTON

I, Dolores Sexton, declare as follows:

1. I am over the age of 18 and competent to make the following declarations. Unless 

otherwise indicated, the statements in this declaration are based upon either my personal 

knowledge or corporate records maintained by Dexcom, Inc. (“Dexcom”) in the ordinary course 

of business that I reviewed. If called as a witness, I could and would testify regarding the facts in 

this declaration.

2. I am the Senior Manager of HR Systems for Dexcom. I have been employed by 

Dexcom since June 2013. I am familiar with Dexcom’s corporate structure. Based on my review 

of Dexcom’s business records and my personal knowledge, I am knowledgeable about the matters 

discussed in this declaration and can testify competently to them.

3. I understand that Display Technologies, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a patent 

infringement lawsuit against Dexcom in the United States District Court for the Eastern District 

of Texas, Case No. 2:23-cv-00589-JRG-RSP.

Case 2:23-cv-00589-JRG-RSP Document 11-1 Filed 02/16/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 50
2

4. I further understand that Plaintiff alleges that Dexcom’s G5, G6, and G7 

Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Systems (the “Accused Products”) infringe Plaintiff’s 

U.S. Patent No. 8,671,195. 

5. Dexcom is a Delaware Company and has its principal place of business at 6340 

Sequence Drive, San Diego, California 92121. 

6. Dexcom does not have any physical places of business in the Eastern District of 

Texas. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in San Diego, California, on this 16th day of February, 2024.

 Dolores C Sexton

____________________________

 Dolores Sexton

Case 2:23-cv-00589-JRG-RSP Document 11-1 Filed 02/16/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 51
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 6 

To make effective appointment of Senate Legal Counsel. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To make effective appointment of Senate Legal Counsel. 

1 Resolved, That the appointment of Morgan J. Frankel 

2 of the District of Columbia to be Senate Legal Counsel, 

3 made by the President pro tempore this day, shall become 

4 effective as of January 7, 2011, and the term of service 

5 of the appointee shall expire at the end of the One Hun6 dred Thirteenth Congress. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Patrick T. HUGHES, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 19-7027

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office denied.
Alonzo Lamar JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7675.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Freddie Lee FOUNTAIN, Petitioner v. TEXAS.

No. 18-9843

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
No. 6:23-cr-00112

United States of America

v.

Steven Duane Chandler

ORDER

This criminal action was referred to United States Magistrate 

Judge John D. Love for administration of a guilty plea under Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The magistrate judge conducted a 

hearing in the form and manner prescribed by Rule 11 and issued 

findings of fact and recommendation on guilty plea. Doc. 29. The 

magistrate judge recommended that the court accept defendant’s 

guilty plea and adjudge defendant guilty on count one of the information. Id. at 2. Defendant waived his right to object to the magistrate judge’s findings. Id.

The court hereby accepts the findings of fact and recommendation on guilty plea of the United States Magistrate Judge. The court 

also accepts defendant’s plea but defers acceptance of the plea 

agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

In accordance with defendant’s guilty plea, the court finds defendant Steven Duane Chandler guilty of count one of the information, charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) – Possession of 

Stolen Firearm.

So ordered by the court on March 27, 2024.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cr-00112-JCB-JDL Document 30 Filed 03/27/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 73
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6161

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RONALD CHISHOLM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:14-cr-00132-RGD-LRL-1)

Submitted: April 16, 2020 Decided: April 21, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Chisholm, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Chisholm appeals the district court’s order denying Chisholm’s motion for 

appointment of counsel to aid him in determining whether Chisholm qualifies for relief 

under the First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, and finding Chisholm was 

ineligible for relief under the Act. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in 

the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Chisholm’s informal brief does not 

challenge either aspect of the district court’s disposition, Chisholm has forfeited appellate 

review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014)

(“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is 

limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

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

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

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Freddie Lee MORRIS, Petitioner, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 18-9823

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

DAULTON WAYNE ANTHONY (8) 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NUMBER 6:23-CR-00096-JDK 

ORDER ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY 

The Court referred this matter to the Honorable John D. Love, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for administration of a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11. The Magistrate Judge conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed 

by Rule 11 and issued Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea. The Magistrate 

Judge recommended that the Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea and adjudge Defendant 

guilty on Count Twelve of the Indictment. 

The parties have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings. 

The Court hereby ADOPTS the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea 

of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court also accepts Defendant’s plea but defers 

acceptance of the plea agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

In accordance with Defendant’s guilty plea, the Court finds Defendant Daulton Wayne 

Anthony (8) GUILTY of Count Twelve of the Indictment, charging a violation of Title 26 

U.S.C. § 5861(d) - Possession of an Unregistered Firearm. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11th April, 2024.

Case 6:23-cr-00096-JDK-JDL Document 273 Filed 04/11/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 705
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

June 18, 2014

s0611 

# Order

Clerk June 18, 2014

148301

GAIL A. ANDERSON,

Plaintiff

- Appell ee,

v SC: 148301

COA: 318532

Genesee CC: 12

- 098914

- NO

SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 8, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for

consideration as on leave granted. We further ORDER that trial court proceedings are

stayed pending the completion of this appeal. On motion of a party or on its own motion,

the Court of Appeals may modify, set aside, or place conditions on the stay if it appears

tha t the appeal is not being vigorously prosecuted or if other appropriate grounds appear.