alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 441 

Expressing support for the designation of May 2012 as National Youth 

Traffic Safety Month. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. 

PRYOR, and Mr. THUNE) submitted the following resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of May 2012 as 

National Youth Traffic Safety Month. 

Whereas motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death 

for youth in the United States; 

Whereas thousands of youth are injured or die each year in 

motor vehicle crashes; 

Whereas on average, 11 youths die each day in motor vehicle 

crashes; 

Whereas on average, May through August is the deadliest period for youths on our nation’s highways; 

Whereas on average, 8 of the top 10 deadliest days for youths 

on our nation’s highways were between May and August; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 441 ATS 

Whereas events such as prom and graduation, and the summer driving season, contribute to the risk of a motor vehicle crash due to an increase in the amount of time 

youth spend on the road and in celebratory activities; 

Whereas it is essential to teach our youths that driving is a 

privilege and with that privilege comes risks and responsibilities; 

Whereas this education is essential to preventing risky behaviors that can result in tragic crashes; 

Whereas the National Organizations For Youth Safety 

(NOYS) established a national youth campaign and National Youth Traffic Safety Month to draw attention to 

the increased rate of motor vehicle crashes involving 

youth between May and August, to help enforce youth 

safe driving laws, and to support youth and community 

education on youth traffic safety; and 

Whereas NOYS invites all youths, families, and communities 

to participate in National Youth Traffic Safety Month: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) expresses support for the designation of 

3 May 2012 as ‘‘National Youth Traffic Safety 

4 Month’’; 

5 (2) supports youth traffic safety awareness; and 

6 (3) encourages people across the United States 

7 to observe National Youth Traffic Safety Month 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 441 ATS 

1 with appropriate programs, activities, and cere2 monies. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Willie James ATKINS, Petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 18-9251

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
BANK OF LOUISIANA, et al., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION.

No. 19-15

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 18

- 00655

- CR
Martin HERRERA , Appellant

v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017CR8710A Honorable Sid L. Harle , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 24, 2018
DIS MISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Appellant filed a notice of appeal in the underlying cause on September 4, 2018. A clerk’s record was filed on September 14, 2018, and the docket sheet reflects that appellant is still awaiting sentencing. Because the trial court has not imposed sentence in the underlying cause, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2 (providing appellate deadlines run from the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court). By order dated September 19, 2018, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing by October 3, 2018, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did04

- 18

- 00655

- CR

- 2

- not respond to our order. Because the record reflects appellant is still awaiting sentencing, this appeal is dismissed for lack o f jurisdiction. See id

. PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 09/03/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      145,303
COMMITMENTS
  45,872   31,954   13,352   68,953   76,903  128,177  122,209   17,126   23,094

CHANGES FROM 08/27/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -1,826)
  -1,284     -894      828   -1,649   -3,261   -2,104   -3,327      278    1,501

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    31.6     22.0      9.2     47.5     52.9     88.2     84.1     11.8     15.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      178)
      53       38       40       59       62      126      131
```

----

Updated September 6, 2013
DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 19, 2018 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01222-CV 

IN RE P.K., KIRTLAND REALTY GROUP, L.P., 1907 ELM GP GROUP, 1900 PACIFIC 

GP CORP., PETROCORRIGAN GP, LLC, PETROCORRIGAN DEVELOPMENT GP 

CORP., KRG GENPAR, LLC, T.W. DUKE CAPITAL, L.P., AND TWDC GENPAR, 

LLC, Relators 

Original Proceeding from the 302nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-17-11304 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Fillmore 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

In this original proceeding, relator P.K. and his business entities, Kirtland Realty Group, 

L.P., 1907 Elm GP Corp., 1900 Pacific GP Corp., PetroCorrigan GP, LLC, PetroCorrigan 

Development GP Corp., KRG GenPar, LLC, T.W. Duke Capital, LP, and TWDC GenPar, LLC 

(collectively, “the corporate relators”) complain of a temporary injunction against P.K. and a 

temporary restraining order against the corporate relators rendered in a divorce.1

 See TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. §§ 6.501, 6.502. Review by mandamus of temporary orders under subchapter F of the 

family code is proper because those orders, other than an order appointing a receiver, are not 

subject to interlocutory appeal under the family code. See TEX. FAM. CODE. ANN. § 6.507; In re 

 1

 The injunction was rendered by the associate judge and upheld by the trial court following a de novo hearing. Although the associate judge’s 

ruling was to remain in effect “until further order of the court,” as opposed to expiring in fourteen days subject to an extension for good cause 

shown or unopposed extensions, relators characterize the ruling as a temporary restraining order. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 680. 
 –2– 

Vitol, Inc., No. 14-10-00049-CV, 2010 WL 308792, *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, 

orig. proceeding) (per curiam). However, we dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction to the 

extent it complains of the restraining order against the corporate relators as those complaints have 

expired and are moot. See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999) 

(“Appellate courts are prohibited from deciding moot controversies.”); Hermann Hosp. v. Thu Nga 

Thi Tran, 730 S.W.2d 56, 57 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ) (complaints about 

expired orders are moot). As to the temporary injunction, we deny the petition as no abuse of 

discretion has been shown. See In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 259 (Tex. 2008) 

(mandamus relief granted only when no adequate remedy by appeal exists and the trial court has 

clearly abused its discretion). 

181222F.P05 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 06/26/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      524,961
COMMITMENTS
  50,226   23,231  139,858  313,828  346,069  503,912  509,157   21,049   15,804

CHANGES FROM 06/19/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     17,080)
  -6,477   -1,639    7,192   12,777   12,082   13,493   17,636    3,587     -556

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     9.6      4.4     26.6     59.8     65.9     96.0     97.0      4.0      3.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      130)
      29       27       49       64       62      120      117
```

----

Updated June 29, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC.,

COMMSCOPE INC., ARRIS US HOLDINGS,

INC., ARRIS SOLUTIONS, INC., ARRIS

TECHNOLOGY, INC., ARRIS 

ENTERPRISES

LLC, ARRIS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,

ARRIS GLOBAL LTD.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-00455

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Cobblestone Wireless, LLC (“Cobblestone,” “Plaintiff,” 

or “Counterclaim-Defendant”) and Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs CommScope Holding 

Company, Inc., CommScope Inc., ARRIS US Holdings, Inc., Arris Solutions, Inc., ARRIS 

Technology, Inc., Arris Enterprises LLC, ARRIS International Limited, and ARRIS Global Ltd. 

(collectively, “Commscope,” “Defendants,” or “Counterclaim-Plaintiffs”) have filed a joint motion 

to dismiss without prejudice. The Court, having considered this request, is of the opinion that their 

request for dismissal without prejudice should be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action, including Plaintiff’s claims for relief 

against Defendants and Defendant’s counterclaims for relief against Plaintiff, are dismissed 

without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all attorneys’ fees, costs of court and 

expenses shall be borne by each party incurring the same. 

Case 2:23-cv-00455-JRG-RSP Document 29-1 Filed 04/23/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 153
Case 2:23-cv-00455-JRG-RSP Document 29-1 Filed 04/23/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 154
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-16

§

BRANDON NEIL SAMS §

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. 44). 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. § 2422 (b), 

which prohibits coercion and enticement of a minor. 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. 44) 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 amended 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-00016-RWS-JBB Document 45 Filed 03/20/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 146
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 20th day of March, 2024.

Case 5:23-cr-00016-RWS-JBB Document 45 Filed 03/20/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 147
Steven G. PATTEN, Petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 18-9824

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43669

In the Matter of: C.J.T.F.A.V., a Minor. )

)

DENNIS W. BRAULICK,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

KIMBERLY VAN SWERINGER,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 731

Filed: October 17, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Kootenai County. Hon. Cynthia K.C. Meyer, District Judge. Hon. Scott 

Wayman, Magistrate.

District court’s order dismissing intermediate appeal, vacated and case remanded.

Dennis W. Braulick, Post Falls, pro se appellant. 

Flammia and Solomon, P.C.; Anne Solomon, Coeur d’Alene, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Dennis W. Braulick appeals from the district court’s decision dismissing the intermediate 

appeal of the magistrate’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Kimberly Van Sweringer. We 

vacate the district court’s order of dismissal and remand this case for further proceedings.

This is a guardianship case, filed by Braulick seeking guardianship of Van Sweringer’s 

minor child. The magistrate entered summary judgment in favor of Van Sweringer, and Braulick 

filed an intermediate appeal with the district court. The district court ultimately dismissed the 

appeal and awarded attorney fees to Van Sweringer. The district court dismissed the appeal 

because Braulick “failed to comply with the Idaho Appellate Rules, to support and argue an 
2

assignment of error, to raise an issue, and to file an opening brief.” On appeal, Van Sweringer 

also claims that Braulick failed to file an intermediate appellate brief. While the register of 

actions from the district court contains no entry for the filing of an intermediate appellate brief 

by Braulick, the Idaho Supreme Court granted Braulick’s motion to augment our record on 

appeal with a document entitled “Petitioner’s Brief,” which identifies the appeal as being in the 

district court, contains the correct case number, is dated and bears a clerk’s file stamp of 

November 14, 2014, and contains Braulick’s arguments. The district court’s decision dismissing 

the intermediate appeal was not entered until September 10, 2015. This Court cannot reconcile 

the fact that the Petitioner’s Brief bears a clerk’s file stamp yet it is not entered in the register of 

actions. Therefore, explanatory circumstances being absent in our record, we vacate the district 

court’s dismissal of the intermediate appeal and remand for further proceedings.
James J. KAUFMAN, Petitioner, v. Scott WALKER, et al.

No. 18-1111

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                              5

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                 0
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     15,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,840,000
<PP&E>                                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,840,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,451,944
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          15,559
<OTHER-SE>                                      (627,503)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,840,000
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       0
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 623,546
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (623,546)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (623,546)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (623,546)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.04)




</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

JOE DANIEL ADAMS §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-389

JAMES PAYNE, ET AL. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Joe Daniel Adams, formerly an inmate in the Shelby County Jail, proceeding pro

se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several Defendants.

Discussion

When, as in this case, jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391 provides that venue is proper only in the judicial district where the defendants reside or in

which the claim arose. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), for the convenience of parties and witnesses and

in the interests of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division

where it could have been brought.

The actions allegedly taken by Defendants took place in Shelby County, which is located in

the Lufkin Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff’s

claims therefore arose in the Lufkin Division. In addition, Defendants appear to reside in Shelby

County. However, this case was filed in the Beaumont Division. 

The court has considered the circumstances and determined that the interest of justice would

be served if the complaint were transferred to the division in which the claims arose. It is

accordingly

Case 9:23-cv-00225-MAC-CLS Document 19 Filed 12/07/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 149
ORDERED that this civil rights action is TRANSFERRED to the Lufkin Division of the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

2

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 7th day of December, 2023.

Case 9:23-cv-00225-MAC-CLS Document 19 Filed 12/07/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 150
John DOE, aka Cheyenne Moody Davis, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-78

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.
Lee CHANG, Petitioner, v. WISCONSIN

No. 19-5224

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District IV denied.
UN PUBLISHED
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 un published 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 d etermining 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 contenti ons are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Guillermo FUENTES, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 17-8920.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

THOMAS DOUGHERTY, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action. 4:24-cv-33-ALM

§

EQUIFAX INFORMATION 

SERVICES, LLC, and BMW 

FINANCIAL SERVICES N.A., LLC,

Defendants,

§

§

§

§

§

NOTICE OF PENDING SETTLEMENT AS TO

DEFENDANT EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC

Plaintiff THOMAS DOUGHERTY, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby 

submits this Notice of Pending Settlement and states that Plaintiff and Defendant EQUIFAX 

INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, have reached a settlement of this case and are presently 

drafting, finalizing, and executing the settlement and dismissal documents. Plaintiff respectfully 

requests sixty (60) days to complete the necessary settlement paperwork and file the appropriate 

dismissal documents with the Court.

Dated: July 24, 2024 Respectfully submitted

JAFFER & ASSOCIATES PLLC

/s/ Shawn Jaffer

Shawn Jaffer

State Bar No. 24107817

5757 Alpha Rd., Ste. 580

Dallas, Texas 75240

Tel: (469) 589-5605

Fax: (469) 669-0786

Email: edtx@jaffer.law

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 4:24-cv-00033-ALM Document 22 Filed 07/24/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 120
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 24, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document 

has been filed on CM/ECF and which will automatically be served upon all parties of record.

/s/ Shawn Jaffer

Shawn Jaffer

Case 4:24-cv-00033-ALM Document 22 Filed 07/24/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 121