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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

AT&T SERVICES INC., AT&T MOBILITY 

LLC, AND AT&T CORP., 

 Defendants. 

ERICSSON INC. and 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

 Intervenors.

 Case No. 2:23-cv-00468-JRG-RSP 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF JOHN R. GIBSON 

Notice is hereby given that John R. Gibson of the law firm Duane Morris LLP, admitted to 

practice in this Court, enters his appearance as lead counsel of record for Intervenor Ericsson Inc. 

and counsel of record for AT&T Services Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Corp. and Intervenor 

Nokia of America Corporation. Mr. Gibson will accept service of all pleadings, discovery, orders, 

notices, correspondence, and other material related to this litigation on their behalf at his contact 

information below. 

Dated: December 12, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ John R. Gibson 

John R. Gibson 

jrgibson@duanemorris.com 

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

Telephone: (404) 253-6900 

Counsel for AT&T Services Inc., AT&T Mobility 

LLC, AT&T Corp., Intervenors Ericsson Inc. and 

Nokia of America Corporation

Case 2:23-cv-00468-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/12/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 880
 2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to 

electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system 

per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on December 12, 2023. 

/s/ John R. Gibson 

 John R. Gibson 

Case 2:23-cv-00468-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/12/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 881
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION

THE DAILY WIRE, LLC; 

FDRLST MEDIA, LLC; and

THE STATE OF TEXAS, by and through its 

Attorney General, Ken Paxton, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE;

GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT CENTER;

ANTONY BLINKEN, in his official capacity as 

Secretary of State;

LEAH BRAY, in her official capacity as Deputy 

Coordinator of the State Department’s Global 

Engagement Center;

JAMES P. RUBIN, in his official capacity as 

Coordinator for the Global Engagement Center of the 

State Department;

DANIEL KIMMAGE, in his official capacity as the 

Principal Deputy Coordinator for the Global 

Engagement Center at the State Department;

ALEXIS FRISBIE, in her official capacity as Senior 

Technical Advisor of the Technology Engagement 

Team for the Global Engagement Center at the State 

Department;

PATRICIA WATTS, in her official capacity as the 

Director of the Technology Engagement Team at the 

Global Engagement Center at the State Department,

Defendants. 

Civil Action No.: 6:23-cv-00609 

EXHIBIT 7

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 25-7 Filed 03/14/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 773
Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 25-7 Filed 03/14/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 774
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM JAMES, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15287 

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00664-MCE-AC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2017**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, 

Circuit Judges.

William James appeals pro se from the district court’s order sua sponte 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with the district 

court’s order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an 

abuse of discretion, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002), and 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 30 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-15287 

we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing James’ action 

after James failed to comply with court orders and meet deadlines. See id. at 642-

43 (setting forth the factors to consider before dismissing for failure to comply 

with a court order). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying James’ motion for 

appointment of counsel because James failed to demonstrate exceptional 

circumstances. See Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting 

forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel).

AFFIRMED.
Jose Armando BAZAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6113.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of *Davis* v. *United States* , 589 U.S. ---- (2020) (*per curiam* ).
Clifford BRIGHAM, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9641

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
IN RE Andrew J. JOHNSTON, Petitioner

No. 19-7366

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petition for writ of prohibition denied.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 07, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 07, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0192. JEFF RADER v. TIMOTHY BRANTLEY.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

14CV7342
Sabrina GRAHAM, Petitioner, v. Thomas S. WININGER.

No. 19-844

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Indiana denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

Valtrus Innovations Ltd. 

Plaintiff 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

v. 

AT&T Inc., AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T 

Mobility LLC, and AT&T Corp. 

Defendants. 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23cv443 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Valtrus Innovations 

Ltd. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Key Patent Innovations Limited and no publicly held 

company owns 10% or more of its stock. 

 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00443-JRG Document 4 Filed 09/27/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 298
Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Matthew G. Berkowitz by permission Claire 

Henry 

Matthew G. Berkowitz – LEAD ATTORNEY 

Patrick R. Colsher 

Aaron L. Morris 

Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP 

100 Marine Parkway, Suite 300 

Redwood Shores, CA 94065 

Tel: (650) 623-1401 

mberkowitz@reichmanjorgensen.com 

pcolsher@reichmanjorgensen.com 

amorris@reichmanjorgensen.com 

Khue V. Hoang 

Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP 

400 Madison Avenue, Suite 14D 

New York, NY 10017 

Tel: (212) 381-1965 

khoang@reichmanjorgensen.com 

Of Counsel: 

Andrea L. Fair 

Texas Bar No. 24078488 

Claire Abernathy Henry 

Texas State Bar No. 24053063 

WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC 

1507 Bill Owens Pkwy. 

Longview, TX 75604 

Tel: (903) 757-6400 

andrea@wsfirm.com 

claire@wsfirm.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

   

Case 2:23-cv-00443-JRG Document 4 Filed 09/27/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 299
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically in 

compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). Therefore, this document was served on all counsel who are 

deemed to have consented to electronic service on this 27 day of September, 2023. 

/s/ Claire Henry 

Claire Henry 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00443-JRG Document 4 Filed 09/27/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 300
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

132582 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

v SC: 132582 COA: 272373 Muskegon CC: 05-051798-FH DANIEL GLEN HORAN, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e October 16, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the sentence of the Muskegon Circuit Court and
we REMAND this case to the trial court for rese ntencing. It is undi sputed that OV 13 (Continuing Pattern of Criminal Behavior) was incorrectly sc ored, and that correcting the score reduces the applicable guidelines range. The trial c ourt departed upward from the guidelines, but did not declare that it would impose the same sentence regardless of the offense variable scoring. Rather, the cour t based the extent of the departure on the guidelines range. It is unclear that the trial court would have departed to the same extent under the correctly scored guidelines. Therefore, People v Mutchie , 468 Mich 50, 51 (2003), does not apply. On remand, the c ourt may again depart from the appropriate sentencing guidelines range by articulating a substantial and compelling reason for the departure in accordance with People v Babcock , 469 Mich 247, 268 (2 003). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

p0328 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 28, 2007

Clerk
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SYMVIONICS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY,

Appellee

______________________ 

2017-2536

______________________ 

Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract 

Appeals in Nos. 60335, 60612, Administrative Judge 

James R. Sweet, Administrative Judge Owen C. Wilson, 

Administrative Judge Richard Shackleford.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

LARS ERIC ANDERSON, Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, 

PC, Reston, VA, argued for appellant. 

 JESSICA R. TOPLIN, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented 

by ALLISON KIDD-MILLER, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN,

JR., CHAD A. READLER. 

 ______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

 October 3, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
Frederick S. SMITH, petitioner, v. WISCONSIN.

No. 17-8778.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied.
EXHIBIT 11
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                       ANDRX CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)



                                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED                    NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                SEPTEMBER 30,                         SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                           1996                1995              1996               1995
                                                      ---------------------------------     -------------------------------

<S>                                                   <C>                 <C>               <C>                <C>          
Net loss                                              $ (1,018,100)       $ (1,096,500)     $ (2,903,000)      $ (2,884,400)
                                                      =============       =============     =============      ============

Actual weighted average shares
    of common stock outstanding                          13,297,000          9,536,800         11,734,000         9,080,500

Impact of shares issued within
    12 months of initial public offering,
    after application of the treasury method                   --               99,200               --             101,700

Impact of warrants exercised within
    12 months of initial public offering,
    after application of the treasury method                   --                 --                 --              53,400

Impact of options granted within
    12 months of initial public offering,
    after application of the treasury method                   --               16,400               --              16,500
                                                      -------------       -------------     -------------      ------------
Weighted average shares of
    common stock outstanding                             13,297,000          9,652,400         11,734,000         9,252,100
                                                      =============       =============     =============      ============

Net loss per share                                    $      (0.08)       $     (0.11)      $       (0.25)     $      (0.31)
                                                      =============       =============     =============      ============

</TABLE>
Miguel A. JARAMILLO, petitioner, v. NEW YORK.

No. 17-8909.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UAET (02-2008)

Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint

Attach this form to the Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint event.

CASE AND DEADLINE INFORMATION

Civil Action No.:

Name of party requesting extension:

Is this the first application for extension of time in this case? Yes

No

If no, please indicate which application this represents: Second

Third

Other ___________

Date of Service of Summons:

Number of days requested: 30 days

15 days

Other _____ days

New Deadline Date: (Required)

ATTORNEY FILING APPLICATION INFORMATION

Full Name:

State Bar No.:

Firm Name:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

Email:

A certificate of conference does not need to be filed with this unopposed application.

Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 12 Filed 10/26/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 38
Randel HUTSON, petitioner, v. G.J. GIURBINO, Warden.

No. 17-8850.

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.
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 06/25/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       77,294
COMMITMENTS
  24,350    2,741    2,109   46,303   69,879   72,762   74,729    4,532    2,565

CHANGES FROM 06/18/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -24,022)
   2,826     -249     -880  -24,045  -20,043  -22,099  -21,172   -1,923   -2,850

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    31.5      3.5      2.7     59.9     90.4     94.1     96.7      5.9      3.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       76)
      13        5        1       38       35       51       41
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 06/25/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:      217,229
COMMITMENTS
  65,117   49,636    1,619  137,410  157,815  204,146  209,070   13,083    8,159

CHANGES FROM 06/18/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -45,763)
  -4,388    7,056     -890  -28,278  -45,067  -33,556  -38,901  -12,207   -6,862

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    30.0     22.8      0.7     63.3     72.6     94.0     96.2      6.0      3.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      159)
      37       23        8       69       56      110       83
```

----

Updated June 28, 2013
Jonathan CANALES, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 19-7219.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District denied.
Charles Daniel MAYE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-128

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0000911503
<NAME>                                Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                      145,091,046
<SECURITIES>                                                  7,604,645
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   479,837
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            153,175,528
<PP&E>                                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              153,175,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         3,651,241
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                                  149,524,287
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                153,175,528
<SALES>                                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                897,966
<CGS>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              4,331,257
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              (3,433,291)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 (3,433,291)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    (27.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         0
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7938

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL TRACY HARMON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (CR-99-23, CA-00-537)

Submitted: July 11, 2003 Decided: August 5, 2003

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Tracy Harmon, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Tracy Harmon seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue for claims addressed by the district

court on the merits absent "a substantial showing of the denial of

a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harmon has not

made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability

and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We have issued our report dated March 8, 2004, accompanying the consolidated financial statements of Reptron Electronics,Inc. and our report dated March 8, 2004 accompanying the schedule of Reptron Electronics, Inc., that are included in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of saidreports in the Registration Statement of Reptron Electronics, Inc., on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-103936, effective March 19, 2003, File No. 333-28727, effective June 6, 1997 and File No. 33-87854, effective December 22, 1994). 

 

GRANT THORNTON LLP 

 

Tampa, Florida 

March 8, 2004
KPMG, LLP, Petitioner, v. SINGING RIVER HEALTH SYSTEM, aka Singing River Hospital System

KPMG, LLP, Petitioner, v. Jackson County, Mississippi

No. 18-1308

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Mississippi denied.
Devi PORTER, Petitioner, v. BALTIMORE WASHINGTON MEDICAL CENTER, INC.

No. 19M34

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.