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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

DEAVERIELLE DANIELS §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23cv189

WARDENS AND ASST. WARDENS, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Deaverielle Daniels, 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 June 6, 2024, the court entered an order directing plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing

fee. Plaintiff was given 30 days to comply with the court’s order. Plaintiff acknowledged receipt

of the court’s order on June 17, 2024. The time period for complying with the order has expired.

However, plaintiff has not paid the initial partial filing fee, shown good cause for failing to do so

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 Insurance 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 9:23-cv-00189-MAC-ZJH Document 5 Filed 07/24/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 14
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

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 24th day of July, 2024.

Case 9:23-cv-00189-MAC-ZJH Document 5 Filed 07/24/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 15
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

12/6/2023

Case 2:23-cv-00568-JRG Document 4 Filed 12/06/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 178
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-00568-JRG Document 4 Filed 12/06/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 179
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             9,366
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                                 0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                       0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                       0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       18,589
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             6,570
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               6,577
<LOANS>                                          722,200
<ALLOWANCE>                                        8,840
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   817,313
<DEPOSITS>                                       595,126
<SHORT-TERM>                                     132,648
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                9,096
<LONG-TERM>                                       14,552
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          65,891
<OTHER-SE>                                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   817,313
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   15,773
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    830
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                       0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  16,603
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 6,889
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 8,864
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              7,739
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        609
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                     0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    6,729
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    3,450
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         3,450
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       2,214
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.38
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                      4.07
<LOANS-NON>                                       13,023
<LOANS-PAST>                                           0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                       0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   10,572
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   8,607
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        482
<RECOVERIES>                                          44
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  8,840
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               8,840
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            8,264
                                                
                                       

</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 - Marshall Division

ASUS TECHNOLOGY LICENSING INC.

AND CELERITY IP, LLC

2:23-cv-488

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. AND 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON 

WIRELESS

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless

by and through its Registered Agent

The Corporation Trust Company

1209 Orange Street

Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Robert Christopher Bunt

Parker Bunt & Ainsworth, PC

100 E. Ferguson, Suite 418

Tyler, Texas 75702

10/19/2023

Case 2:23-cv-00488-JRG-RSP Document 4 Filed 10/19/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 56
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:

2:23-cv-488 0.00 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:23-cv-00488-JRG-RSP Document 4 Filed 10/19/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 57
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO. 5:23-cr-17

§

PATRICK WAYNE KELLAM §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The above-styled matter was referred to the Honorable J. Boone Baxter, United States 

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

Procedure. Judge Baxter conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed by Federal Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 11 and issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 37). Judge 

Baxter recommended that the Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea and conditionally approve the 

plea agreement. He further recommended that the Court finally adjudge Defendant as guilty of 

Count 1 of the Indictment. Count 1 of the Indictment charges a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A 

(a)(5)(B) and 2252a (b)(2), possession of child pornography. The Court is of the opinion that the 

Report and Recommendation should be accepted. It is accordingly ORDERED that the Report 

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 37) is ADOPTED. It is 

further

ORDERED that the Defendant’s guilty plea is accepted and approved by the Court. 

Further, the plea agreement is approved by the Court, conditioned upon a review of the presentence 

report. It is finally 

ORDERED that, pursuant to the Defendant’s plea agreement, the Court finds the 

Defendant GUILTY of Count 1 of the Indictment in the above-numbered cause and enters a

Case 5:23-cr-00017-RWS-JBB Document 39 Filed 03/28/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 95
2

JUDGMENT OF GUILTY against the Defendant as to Count 1 of the Indictment.

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28th day of March, 2024.

Case 5:23-cr-00017-RWS-JBB Document 39 Filed 03/28/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 96
MARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, L.L.C., et al., petitioners, v. ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INCORPORATED.

No. 18-646.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2019.

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

Exhibit 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8, No. 333-10017 and 333-58403) pertaining to the ACT Teleconferencing,
Inc. Stock Option Plans of 1991 and 1996, of our report dated February 8, 2000,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of ACT Teleconferencing,
Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31,
1999, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                                   ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Denver, Colorado
February 28, 2000

                                    Page 49
William Scott FITTS, petitioner, v. Barry GOODRICH, Warden, et al.

No. 18-6580.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
Danny P. PHIPPS, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK

No. 19-5011

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department denied.
ex10-1.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 



AMENDMENT


OF


2011 AMENDED AND RESTATED


ACCO BRANDS CORPORATION


INCENTIVE PLAN


 


 


This Amendment (“Amendment”) of the 2011 Amended and Restated ACCO Brands Corporation Incentive Plan (“Plan”), adopted by the Board as of February 23, 2012, is effective on the Effective Time (defined below) subject to approval by the stockholders at the special meeting occurring in connection with the Merger (defined below).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, ACCO Brands Corporation (the “Company”) sponsors the Plan, which the Company most recently amended and restated pursuant to stockholder approval on May 17, 2011;


 


WHEREAS, the Company has entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with MeadWestvaco Corporation and Monaco SpinCo, Inc., dated as of November 17, 2011 (“Merger Agreement”), pursuant to which on the Effective Time (as defined in the Merger Agreement) Augusta Acquisition Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, will merge with and into Monaco SpinCo, Inc. (the “Merger”); and


 


WHEREAS, in connection with the Merger, the Board deems it advisable to amend the Plan, subject to approval of the stockholders, to increase the maximum number of Shares authorized for Awards thereunder and to modify the ratio of Shares issuable pursuant to Full Value Awards to Shares issuable pursuant to SARs and Options.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Company amends the Plan effective on the Effective Time, subject to the approval of the stockholders at the special meeting for approval of the Merger, as follows:


 


1.        Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Plan.


 


2.        Section 4(a) of the Plan is amended as follows:


 


(a)   By deleting the number “5,265,000” and replacing it with the number “15,665,000”; and


 


(b)   By deleting the number “1.58” and replacing it with the number “1.24”, effective for Shares issued pursuant to Awards, other than SARs and Options, granted after the Effective Time.


 


3.        The Plan is hereby ratified, affirmed and continued, as amended hereby.


 


WHEREFORE, the Company hereby adopts this Amendment effective as set forth above.


 









	  	
ACCO BRANDS CORPORATION


 


 


By: /s/ Steve Rubin                                                             


Its: Senior Vice President, Secretary and


General Counsel









 


 




  





E-1
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 03/26/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      409,747
COMMITMENTS
 125,501  189,084   65,822  192,036  124,554  383,359  379,460   26,388   30,287

CHANGES FROM 03/19/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -53,685)
  10,866   -9,951  -12,979  -46,444  -26,289  -48,557  -49,219   -5,128   -4,466

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    30.6     46.1     16.1     46.9     30.4     93.6     92.6      6.4      7.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      172)
      59       65       71       34       30      136      134
```

----

Updated March 29, 2013
Lazaro ZAPATA, Petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 19-7264

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

MARICEL FORTEZA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PELICAN INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 

GROUP, LLC d/b/a AAP and AUTO 

SERVICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-401-ALM-KPJ

ORDER

On September 26, 2023, Defendant Sing for Service, LLC d/b/a MEPCO (“MEPCO”) filed 

the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Against MEPCO and Brief in Support (the 

“Motion to Dismiss”) (Dkt. 27). See Dkt. 27. On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff Maricel Forteza 

(“Plaintiff”) filed a notice of settlement (the “Notice of Settlement”) (Dkt. 50) representing that 

she reached a settlement with MEPCO, as well as Defendants Pelican Investment Holdings Group, 

LLC d/b/a AAP and Auto Service Department (“AAP”) and Palmer Administrative Services, Inc.

(“Palmer”). See Dkt. 50 at 1.

On June 4, 2024, the Court ordered the parties to “submit to the Court all papers necessary 

for the resolution of the claims between them.” Dkt. 51 at 1. On August 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed the 

Stipulation of Dismissal (Dkt. 52), wherein she dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted against 

MEPCO. See Dkt. 52.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 27) is DENIED AS 

MOOT.

Case 4:23-cv-00401-ALM-KPJ Document 53 Filed 08/06/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 295
Dennis Levece MAYES, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 17-8755.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District denied.
Alfredo M. VASQUEZ, Petitioner v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 18-9583

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District denied.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-3157

_____________________________

DAVID PHILLIP STEVENS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County.

James M. Colaw, Judge.

August 16, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, BILBREY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Heather Flanagan Ross,

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2292

To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to repeal the housing guaranty

program under that Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 22, 1999

Mr. BACHUS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on International Relations

A BILL

To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to repeal

the housing guaranty program under that Act.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Urban and Environ5 mental Credit Program Elimination Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF HOUSING GUARANTY PROGRAM UNDER

7 THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Sections 221 and 222 of the For9 eign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2181 and 2182)

10 are hereby repealed.
2

•HR 2292 IH

1 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The repeal made by subsection

2 (a) of the provisions of law described in such section shall

3 not affect any guaranty issued under such provisions be4 fore the date of the enactment of this Act.

5 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Section 223 of

6 such Act (22 U.S.C. 2183) is amended—

7 (A) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘222 or’’;

8 (B) in subsection (b)—

9 (i) by inserting after ‘‘section 222’’ the

10 first place it appears ‘‘(as in effect on the day

11 before the date of the enactment of the Urban

12 and Environmental Credit Program Elimination

13 Act)’’;

14 (ii) by striking ‘‘meeting necessary admin15 istrative and operating expenses of carrying out

16 the provisions of section 222 and’’; and

17 (iii) by striking ‘‘pursuant to section 222

18 or heretofore’’;

19 (C) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘or section

20 222’’;

21 (D) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘222 or’’;

22 (E) by striking subsection (f); and

23 (F) in subsection (j)—

24 (i) by striking the first sentence; and

25 (ii) by striking the last sentence.
3

•HR 2292 IH

1 (2) Section 226(l) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2186(l))

2 is amended—

3 (A) in the first sentence, by inserting after

4 ‘‘section 222’’ the following: ‘‘(as in effect on the

5 day before the date of the enactment of the Urban

6 and Environmental Credit Program Elimination

7 Act)’’; and

8 (B) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘sec9 tions 221, 222, and’’ and inserting ‘‘section’’.

Æ
Jeffrey MILLER, Petitioner, v. Harold D. GRAHAM, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility.

No. 19M43

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ of certiorari out of time denied.