alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 436TH DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on July 22, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

In the Matter of G.L.R., Jr., a juvenile, Appellant

V.

No. 04

- 14

- 00708

- CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2014

- JUV

- 01095

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s

judgment is AFFIRMED.

We order that no costs be assessed against appellant G.L.R. Jr. because

he is indigent.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on September 30, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853BILL OF COSTS



### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04

- 14

- 00708

- CV

In the Matter of G.L.R., Jr., a juvenile

v.

(NO. 2014

- JUV

- 01095 IN 436TH DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

FILING $195.00 EXEMPT

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in**  **this cause shall**  **be paid as**  **per the**  **Judgment issued by**  **this Court.** 

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this September 30, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
Patrick Randell MCINTOSH, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7137

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Edwin David CALLIGAN, Petitioner, v. INDIANA.

No. 19-7432.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Indiana denied.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

October 16, 2014

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

ROBERT M. DOW, JR., District Judge *

Nos. 12

‐ 2621, 12

‐ 2762

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District Court

Plaintiff–Appellant , for the Western District of Wisconsin

v. No. 3:07

‐ cr

‐ 00080

‐ wmc

‐ 1

QUADALE D. COLEMAN, William M. Conley, Chief Judge.

Defendant–Appellee

.

______________________________________

QUADALE D. COLEMAN, Appeal from the United States District Court

Petitioner

‐ Appellee, for the Western District of Wisconsin

v. No. 3:10

‐ cv

‐ 00736

‐ wmc

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, William M. Conely, Chief Judge.

Respondent

‐ Appellant.

O R D E R

No judge of the court having called for a vote on the Petition For Rehearing and

* The Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., of the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by

designation.Appeal nos. 12

‐ 2621, 12

‐ 2762 Page 2

Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc filed by Defendant

‐ Petitioner

‐ Appellee on

September 29, 2014, and all of the judges on the original panel having voted to deny the

same,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition For Rehearing and Suggestion for

Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the opinion issued in the above

‐ entitled case on

August 14, 2014, is hereby amended as follows:

The last sentence in the opinion is revised so that it reads:

“Based on our decision in Hawkins

, the decision of the

district court in No. 12

‐ 2621 resentencing Coleman is

VACATED, the decision in No. 12

‐ 2762 granting the § 2255

motion is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the

district court for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion, including consideration of any remaining issues

presented in the § 2255 motion.”
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Center for Inherited Disease Research Access Committee.                    

*Date:*                         July 8, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         11:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                              ( print page 32177)    

*Place:*                         National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 300, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Barbara J. Thomas, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 300, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-8837,                         *barbara.thomas@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 24, 2022. 

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-11453 Filed 5-26-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
IN RE Todd BRITTON-HARR, Petitioner

No. 19-934

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A 

VERIZON WIRELESS, 

Defendant, 

ERICSSON INC. and NOKIA OF 

AMERICA CORP., 

Intervenors. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP 

(Lead Case) 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

AT&T SERVICES INC., et al., 

Defendants, 

ERICSSON INC. and NOKIA OF 

AMERICA CORP., 

Intervenors. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00380-JRG-RSP 

(Member Case) 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

T-MOBILE USA, INC.,

Defendant, 

ERICSSON INC. and NOKIA OF 

AMERICA CORP., 

Intervenors. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00381-JRG-RSP 

(Member Case) 

Case 2:23-cv-00380-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 10/18/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 85
2 

ORDER

Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by Plaintiff Cobblestone Wireless, 

LLC and Defendants T-Mobile USA, Inc., AT&T Services Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T 

Enterprises, LLC, and Cellco Partnership d/b/a, and Intervenors Nokia of America Corporation 

and Ericsson Inc. (Dkt. No. 105.) In the Motion, the parties represent that the above-captioned case 

has been resolved and request dismissal of all of the above-captioned actions WITH prejudice. (Id. 

at 2.) 

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 Defendants and 

Intervenors in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party is to 

bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the abovecaptioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE all of the above-captioned cases as no parties or 

claims remain.

.

____________________________________

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 17th day of October, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-00380-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 10/18/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 86
Order entered November 30, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 00298
- CR
MONTRANCE TYRONE ROB ERSON, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from t he 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F15
- 51843
- N



### O RDER On November 8, 2016, we entered an order that court reporter Sandra Hughes not sit until she filed a supplemental reporter’s record containing exhibits missing from the reporter’s record she filed in this appeal on October 12, 2016

. Because the supplemental reporter’s record has now been filed, we VACATE that portion of our November 8, 2016 order that orders Sandra Hughes not to sit.
We DIRECT the Clerk to tr ansmit copies of this order to the Honorable Fred Tinsley, Presiding Judge, 195th Judicial District Court; Sandra Hughes, Official Court Reporter, 195th Judicial District Court; the Dallas County Auditor’s Office; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA B ROWN JUSTICE
Walter Lee DEITER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6424.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

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

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 6:23-cr-00061-1

United States of America

v.

Russell Rothe

ORD ER

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. 192. The 

magistrate judge recommended that the court accept defendant’s 

guilty plea and adjudge defendant guilty on count one of the indictment. 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 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 Russell Rothe (1) guilty of count one of the indictment, 

charging a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 – Conspiracy to Possess with 

Intent to Distribute Marijuana.

So ordered by the court on November 30, 2023.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cr-00061-JCB-JDL Document 205 Filed 11/30/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 661
William Jerome HOWARD, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9772

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

MAXX LYMAN, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly 

situated

v.

GLOBE LIFE INC.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO. 4:23-CV-911-SDJ

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to 

File Reply. (Dkt. #14). The Court notes that Defendant filed its Reply in Support of 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on December 26, 2023. (Dkt. #15). 

It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension 

of Time to File Reply, (Dkt., #14), is DENIED as moot.

Case 4:23-cv-00911-SDJ Document 16 Filed 12/29/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 129
Amendment No. 4 to the 2005 Executive Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.2 
 AMENDMENT #4 
 TO THE 

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. 
 2005 EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE PLAN 
 Effective January 1, 2011 







 Pursuant to the resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of Consolidated Edison, Inc.,
at a meeting duly held on July 15, 2010, the undersigned hereby approves effective January 1, 2011, the amendment set forth below to the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. 2005 Executive Incentive Plan, as set forth below:

  

	 	1.	The PURPOSE is amended by adding the following at the end thereof: 

  


	 	 	“Effective January 1, 2011, the Plan is amended to include language specifically stating that any Award granted to an Officer based on a performance period
beginning on or after January 1, 2011 is subject to the Company’s Recoupment Policy, as amended from time to time.” 

  

	 	2.	ARTICLE V. PAYMENT OF AWARDS is amended as follows: 

  

	 	 	A new Section 5.04 is added as follows: 

 5.04  Recoupment of Awards
 The Participant’s Incentive
Award, is subject to the Company’s Recoupment Policy, as amended from time to time. 
 (a)     Under
this Recoupment Policy, appropriate actions, as determined by the Committee, will be undertaken by the Company to recoup the Excess Award Amount, as defined below, received by any Participant when: 

(1)     The Audit Committee of CEI determines that CEI is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to its
material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirement under the securities laws ( a “Restatement”); 

(2)     The Participant received an Award during the three-year period preceding the date on which CEI is required to
prepare a Restatement; and 

  
 1 








 (3)     The amount of the Award received by the Participant, based on
the erroneous data, was in excess of what would have been paid to the Participant under the Restatement (the “Excess Award Amount”). 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this instrument this
29th day of February, 2012. 

 

					
	 	  	/s/ Mary Adamo	 	 
		  	Plan Administrator,	 	
		  	Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.	 	
		  	2005 Executive Incentive Plan	 	
		  	and	 	
		  	Vice President – Human Resources	 	
		  	Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.	 	


  
 2
Jurother Lee ALSTON, Jr., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7209

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

AT&T INC., et al.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00443-JRG

(Lead Case)

v. 

T-MOBILE USA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00444-JRG

(Member Case)

v. 

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., et 

al.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00445-JRG

(Member Case)

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Valtrus Innovations, Ltd.’s (“Valtrus”) Motion for Leave to 

Amend the Complaint to Assert U.S. Patent No. 7,769,050 (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 72.) In the

Motion, Valtrus moves to file an amended complaint to assert U.S. Patent No. 7,769,050 against 

Defendants. (Id.) The Motion was originally filed as an opposed motion. (Id.) However, after the 

Motion was filed, the parties continued to meet and confer and reached an agreement to narrow 

the scope of the claims and prior art at issue in this case to allow for the addition of the U.S. Patent 

No. 7,769,050. (Dkt. No. 77.) Pursuant to this agreement, Defendants in the above-captioned 

Case 2:23-cv-00443-JRG Document 80 Filed 05/03/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1760
2 

consolidated cases submitted a Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 

File an Amended Complaint indicating that Defendants no longer oppose Valtrus’s Motion. 

Having considered the Motion, and noting that it is unopposed, the Court finds that the 

same should be and hereby is GRANTED. 

.

____________________________________

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 3rd day of May, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-00443-JRG Document 80 Filed 05/03/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1761
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.

 July 1, 2013

p0626

Order 

Clerk

July 1, 2013

146520 & (88)

LEON V. BONNER and

MARILYN E. BONNER,

Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants- Appellees,

v SC: 146520

COA: 302677

Livingston CC: 09-024680-CZ

CITY OF BRIGHTON,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 4, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The Brighton 

Code of Ordinances § 18-59 creates a presumption that an unsafe structure shall be 

demolished as a public nuisance if the cost to repair the structure would exceed 100% of 

the structure’s true cash value as reflected in assessment tax rolls before the structure 

became unsafe and does not afford the owner of such a structure an option to repair as a 

matter of right. The parties shall address whether § 18-59 is facially unconstitutional on 

the basis that the ordinance violates: (1) substantive due process; and/or (2) procedural 

due process. These issues are to be briefed separately by the parties.

The motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The Public 

Corporation Law and the Real Property Law Sections of the State Bar of Michigan are 

invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the 

determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to 

file briefs amicus curiae.
Exhibit 10(a)



 Exhibit 10a 
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 







 We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm” in the Statement of Additional Information, and to the use of our reports: (1) dated April 11, 2012, with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements and schedules of Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company, and (2) dated
April 23, 2012, with respect to the financial statements of the subaccounts of Separate Account VA QQ included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-173975) under the Securities Act of 1933 and related
Prospectus of DWS Personal Pension Variable Annuity. 
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Des Moines, Iowa 
 April 23, 2012
----

|   | /s/ Selwyn Joffe        |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Selwyn Joffe            |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   | July 29, 2015           |   |
|   | /s/ David Lee           |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | David Lee               |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   | July 29, 2015           |   |
|   | /s/ Kevin Daly           |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Kevin Daly               |   |
|   | Chief Accounting Officer |   |
|   | July 29, 2015            |   |

----
Nathaniel WOODS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson S. DUNN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 19-7880 (19A976)

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 5, 2020

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied. The order heretofore entered by Justice Thomas is vacated.
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 12/31/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      164,866
COMMITMENTS
  37,337   16,305   22,802   86,132  100,803  146,271  139,909   18,595   24,957

CHANGES FROM 12/24/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      3,130)
    -689    1,322    1,622    1,729   -1,371    2,662    1,573      468    1,557

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    22.6      9.9     13.8     52.2     61.1     88.7     84.9     11.3     15.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      183)
      49       34       35       63       83      131      137
```

----

Updated January 4, 2013
Gabriel Urzua SANCHEZ, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 18-9070

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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