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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

RUEBEN SCOTT MARTIN 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NUMBER 6:23-CR-00081-JDK 

ORDER ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY 

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

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

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

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

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

guilty on Count One of the Indictment. 

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

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

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

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

In accordance with Defendant’s guilty plea, the Court finds Defendant Rueben Scott 

Martin GUILTY of Count One of the Indictment, charging a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 

922(g)(1) - Felon in Possession of a Firearm. 

So ordered and signed on this 

Aug 5, 2024

Case 6:23-cr-00081-JDK-JDL Document 34 Filed 08/06/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 82
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR

BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOANS

SERVICING, L.P., F/K/A

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS

SERVICING, L.P.,

 Respondent

 v.

MATTHEW J. GIBSON,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 740 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
XITRONIX CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. KLA-TENCOR CORPORATION, dba KLA-Tencor, Inc.

No. 19-58

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Order entered January 9 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 00998
- CR
KEVIN DEWAYNE EDWARDS, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District Court Kaufman County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. 28935
- 422 

### O RDER Appellant’s December 31, 2012 third motion for extension to extend the time to file appellant’s brief is DENIED

. We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If app ellant is indigent, the trial court isORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall includ e written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or w hen the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 03/12/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      434,750
COMMITMENTS
 121,340  189,698   77,997  222,197  152,239  421,534  419,934   13,216   14,816

CHANGES FROM 03/05/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     20,873)
  18,808    7,023   10,515    4,741   16,854   34,064   34,392  -13,191  -13,519

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    27.9     43.6     17.9     51.1     35.0     97.0     96.6      3.0      3.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      180)
      62       68       74       40       38      143      146
```

----

Updated March 15, 2013
Alphonso CHURCHWELL, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6284.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

JONATHAN BRADLEY NYKAMP

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NUMBER 6:23-CR-00047-JDK

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ON 

GUILTY PLEA BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

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

On April 25, 2023, this cause came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge 

for a plea of guilty to an Information charging Defendant Jonathan Bradley Nykamp in Count One

with a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud in Violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 1343. After conducting said proceeding in the form and manner prescribed by FED. R.

CRIM. P. 11, the undersigned finds that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 6:23-cr-00047-JDK-KNM Document 14 Filed 04/25/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

39
2

basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense; and

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

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

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the District Court accept the Plea 

Agreement and the Guilty Plea of the defendant and that JONATHAN BRADLEY NYKAMP

should be finally adjudged guilty of that offense.

Defendant has waived his right to object to the findings of the Magistrate Judge in this 

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

and Recommendation to District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle for adoption immediately upon 

issuance.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th day of April, 2023.

Case 6:23-cr-00047-JDK-KNM Document 14 Filed 04/25/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

40
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC

Plaintiff,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP

(Lead Case)

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC

Plaintiff,

v.

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE 

COMPANY, ARUBA NETWORKS, LLC

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00457-JRG-RSP

(Member Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR HEARING ON 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING INTER PARTES

REVIEW AND EX PARTE REEXAMINATION

Upon consideration of Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise 

Company, and Aruba Networks, LLC’s (collectively, “Defendants”) unopposed request for a 

hearing on their Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Inter Partes Review and Ex Parte

Reexamination. Dkt. No. 52, it is hereby:

ORDERED that a hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Stay will be scheduled at a time to be 

determined by the Court, where the Parties shall present oral argument on the issue whether the 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 67-1 Filed 10/16/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 553
proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of Inter Partes Review and Ex Parte

Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,924,802. 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 67-1 Filed 10/16/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 554
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 02/05/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      429,820
COMMITMENTS
  78,302  186,163   81,048  240,712  135,301  400,062  402,512   29,758   27,308

CHANGES FROM 01/29/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      5,650)
  -6,933   -3,356    7,835    5,741    1,948    6,643    6,427     -993     -777

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    18.2     43.3     18.9     56.0     31.5     93.1     93.6      6.9      6.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      176)
      51       74       74       39       34      140      142
```

----

Updated February 8, 2013
Marathon Oil Corporation, Marathon Oil EF LLC, and /s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 28, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00650

- CV

Michae l A. CERNY and Myra L. Cerny, Individually and as Next Friends of Cameron A. Cerny, A Child, Appellant s

v.

MARATHON OIL CORPORATION , Marathon Oil EF LLC, and Plains Exploration & Producing Company, Appellee s

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Kar nes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13

- 05

- 00118

- CVK Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On August 27, 2014, appellants filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal the following orders signed by the trial court on August 14, 2014:

1) Order Granting Summary Judgment as to Marathon Oil EF LLC; 2) Order Granting Summary Judgment as to Plains Exploration & Producing Company;

and 3) Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Evidence.

On October 14, 2014, appellants filed an opposed “Motion to Dismiss for Want of

Jurisdiction or Alternativ ely, Motion to Abate and Remand.” In the motion, appellants argue

that because Rule 301 provides that only one final judgment shall be rendered in a cause, and because the trial court signed three separate orders with no “Mother Hubbard” language, there

d oes not exist a final appealable order and we should therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 301. Alternatively, appellants request that we abate the appeal pursuant to Rule 27.2 and remand the cause to the trial court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 27.2.

We disagree that the two orders granting summary judgment cannot be appe aled absent one final judgment. The orders complained of here finally dispose of all parties and causes of

action. See Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp ., 39 S.W .3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001). Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. See H.B. Zachry Co. v. Thibodeaux, 364 S.W.2d 192, 193(Tex. 1963) (holding that prior interlocutory orders merge into subsequent order disposing of

remaining parties and issues, creating a final and appealable judgment); Starr v. Koppers Co

., 398 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Tex. Civ. App.

— San Antonio 1966, writ ref’d n.r.e.); see also Columbia Rio Grande Reg’ l Hosp. v. Stover, 17 S.W.3d 387, 391 (Tex. App.

— C orpus Christi 2000, no

pe t.) (“Once an order has been entered disposing of all remaining parties and issues, all

the orders merge, creating a final and appealable judgment.”); see also Azbill v. Dallas Cnty.

Child Protect ive Servs. Unit of the Tex. Dep’ t of Human & Regulatory Serv s., 860 S.W.2d 133, 137 (Tex. App.

— D allas 1993, no writ) (“[I]t is not necessary that all the dispositive rulings appear in one document before a judgment can become final.”). A ppellants’ motion is therefore

DENIED.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Ma rtinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 28th day of October, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
V f~) SIGINAL

/2ZS-IS

iH-QQ /raff6^ A ,, + RECEIVED IN

: SEP 18 m

FILEDIN7/g S/^e J Ttya.% CQURT0F criminal appeals

yWA* / SEP 18 2S15

Abel Acosta, Cierk

Pehh'on tor Rwie.u> in Cnu^e /i/o. Q5~H~ OO^ll- IK

This is a Petition tor Lbisa'e.iionzryJ ftevieujj

f evi tu/mg the Averse. decKion/opinion of tJne. I±xas

Court d-f Cncnm'dl Appeals in fhetr affirmation

of tht trial Courts qu'ilty vtrdict.

Appellant ujou/J state; after tafci^j Me tria.1

tf&nscr.pts &rd trial Exh)hlts C.dllecti*?i\,; M/3

Monofable Court ^Aou/d Atrerse. snd Re/na^J tAis

(\aus&jQfter granting the Certinr,} 6&c£ to 1~Ae

g-Xfri Cnmrt or Criminal AppealSj uulfA instructions

to" thdf Honorable Court -ha r on and this, wa'tfer

hstk fp the Trial Court for full adjudication

rtf the facts Consistent \jo\th this •HonoraAU

Courts Mandate, naweL ft) &t fye. evidence adduced

-at fn'af ma.s Uf&l/j/ insufficient to sustain a

Zibnyi eti b'n..

-I -
.Appall,a/of tAJQuld Submit that SCtorJinj Jjho

fjie p6hrP Report^ Elaine Sai/y 5/af<vi #>*f /W

vehicle, /lad V-A^-ee £0 /^ scratch ts~ fft f/U

right S<^g;' iajAjcA oaurrfr/ u)/><v? fye appplla^

Lz\\?jec\lyl Collided uuth her, please te-e ;W

ref-tr to ^faH'-S fyhlhils S; Uand 8.

AC(l0jLd/_aj_Tb_J^^5m^^

jiisxr^/^jiy_is_5AftuJ-p^tf^^

LJ a'0-e_6_a.L/j?y -" c^r)i£d^_a^.J_i>o^.ux^l/ao.s./-^LD./7jiluj,b.ea^

.a±Jr!^;j^_^AiA_wj^

.her 1/^.Aiflg. /)cfnr*j;/->j fn+hp Ra/v-Um Ha^p D<V-<-;noa/-/i/J.

J-o^sJ:dle—OMS-e^.i/4^rL.wL/.Mt-0Lcu_u.(_w2pa.c.Lj-Cf3s£

jLoj?JY3ry_J_Ms,J^Bj/jL)L^ ._

^/}.fMka.tls_car:. ___ _

fLuLty^m££-)Jy—/-oAkLOj^

Vou'/I notice fkat f//e pht>f6jrdph< prodused _dj>_r?o£_

Supp-orJljfild^i:hw.Djo^-yij^en^f:o-^.fi '£> aJhs—C-o^nl/-

hJjLt^cp-&rjM£ni„Elagj.e_r£fc^

' a-ih.^CQj£^L6.&£)Jkz-Suppj)^

fb^Jb^±&A^^Jz^n.<L£no

-2
3 sloA.dn\ju of a dnaAt, Mat rki<. incident did naf QCCUr

trial Court; itxat Court d? fnmi/iJ Jaoed/j Zs?r/ Aeorr

this HonnrAiy/p Court^iooujP) evide^nre to proi/e 'ujMouf

*uxJJ&Ljn&m*Lj6dLM^ sd/s-Jj-cLd,.

3:&m£ly.J-ll&—CoJltSj-on-,J).oJ^

pldcinri in imminentAanoesj inhere Me State \ JAhrritJJ

:had tb fear for t)cr lift.

yJJoirrfoj^AtCEkJji^JL^

ton fen JuMxsLj^jLjiaLjtidiusl^

C^ort-^h^^i^JL^f—t^rj±Q/ZL

J~-n %c r-psc dm Aefore tliis ftnnoraA/* Pourf, apae/laif

JS-\t* emphasis on line J7; "... /tf/r G*W«rA fried

¥o Ait Vour vehicle with his vehicle... ' Please note.

that Me witness AneS not std-h appellant tSe</crJ

m?de Content u/ith her irehide.

BaW On tkt States fjrtness Lo^nl testimony,

appellant never made con tact ujirh he' ye-hiJe. fhi/s

all fe?Jonp/)/e inference that Tire nfcorde>d h ttie

SHte are nullified. Tn f»ct} Hie Sjde\ \Alitr)eSS

\A)ho initially fi/pfJ the Complaint (Pullet Report)

recanted hoth prior to tri^l Tin J Auring hrid/}

tJr]eo_ui\rocg/lv statinj appellant Aid not fJ/lJe

uf&k the rthide tke. State \ l/ttneSfeS ujes*

-5"
John Leslie CHAPMAN, petitioner, v. Robert LAMPERT, Director, Wyoming Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 18-6941.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wyoming denied.
EXHIBIT 21.1

FARO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                           |  |                                             
|------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------
|Antares LDA                                |  | Antares, Portugal                           
|Cam2 SRL                                   |  | Rivoli, Italy                               
|FARO Benelux BV                            |  | Eindhoven,Netherlands                       
|FARO Business Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. |  | New Delhi, India                            
|FARO Cayman LP                             |  | Georgetown, Cayman Islands                  
|FARO Cayman Ltd                            |  | Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands                
|FARO Delaware Inc                          |  | Wilmington, Delaware, USA                   
|FARO Deutschland Holding GmbH              |  | Korntal-Münchingen, Germany                 
|FARO Europe KG                             |  | Korntal-Münchingen, Germany                 
|FARO FHN Netherlands BV                    |  | Amsterdam, Netherlands                      
|FARO Japan KK                              |  | Nagoya, Japan                               
|FARO Scanning AG                           |  | Korntal-Münchingen, Germany                 
|FARO Scanner Production GmbH               |  | Korntal-Münchingen, Germany                 
|FARO Shanghai Co, Ltd                      |  | Shanghai, China                             
|FARO Singapore PTE Ltd                     |  | Singapore, Singapore                        
|FARO Spain SL                              |  | Barcelona, Spain                            
|FARO Swiss Holding GmbH                    |  | Beringen, Switzerland                       
|FARO Swiss Manufacturing GmbH              |  | Beringen, Switzerland                       
|FAO Tech Polska                            |  | Poznan, Poland                              
|FARO Verwaltungs GmbH                      |  | Korntal-Münchingen, Germany                 
|FARO Technologies (Thailand) Ltd.          |  | Bangkok,Thailand                            
|Faro Laser Trackers                        |  | Kennett Square, PA USA                      
|3D Measurement Technologies, S de RL de CV |  | Col. Chapultec Morales Cd. De Mexico, Mexico
|FARO France                                |  | Röthenbach/Allgäu, France                   
|FARO UK                                    |  | Coventry, United Kingdom                    
|FARO Australia                             |  | Sydney, Australia
Austin J. APPLETON, Petitioner, v. DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC.

No. 19M109

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
Michael Owen HARRIOT, Petitioner v. Robert WAIZENHOFER, et al.

No. 18-9222

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.
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/22/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      425,350
COMMITMENTS
  94,623  182,685   63,606  235,698  144,742  393,927  391,033   31,423   34,317

CHANGES FROM 01/15/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -36,820)
     694    6,390  -16,532  -22,909  -32,128  -38,747  -42,270    1,927    5,450

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    22.2     42.9     15.0     55.4     34.0     92.6     91.9      7.4      8.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      189)
      69       63       73       42       38      151      145
```

----

Updated January 25, 2013
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Equity Marketing, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "Report"), I,
Lawrence J. Madden, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:


(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company

                            /s/ Lawrence J. Madden
                            ----------------------
                            Lawrence J. Madden
                            Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Dated: August 14, 2003
EXHIBIT D

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17-5 Filed 12/01/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 118
Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17-5 Filed 12/01/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 119
Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17-5 Filed 12/01/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 120
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC CO., LTD and 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-CV-00103-JRG-RSP

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

Notice is hereby given that Thomas H. Reger II, of the law firm Fish & Richardson P.C.,

enters his appearance in this matter for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc. and consents to electronic services of all papers in this action.

Dated: February 1, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

By: /s/ Thomas H. Reger II

Thomas H. Reger II

Texas Bar No. 24032992

reger@fr.com

1717 Main Street, Suite 5000

Dallas, TX 78766

Tel (214) 747-5070

Fax (214) 747-2091

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD AND

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 73 Filed 02/01/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 2097
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document has been served on February 1, 2024 to all counsel of record who are deemed to have 

consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). 

/s/ Thomas H. Reger II

Thomas H. Reger II

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 73 Filed 02/01/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 2098
THE DAILY WIRE, LLC, ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS, 

V. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ET AL., 

DEFENDANTS. 

CASE NO. 6:23-CV-00609-JDK

ORDER 

On this day, the Court considered Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to Serve

Subpoenas. After considering the Motion for Leave, the Court finds it should be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to Serve 

Subpoenas is GRANTED and Plaintiffs may serve two additional preliminary-injunction related 

subpoenas. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12th September, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 78 Filed 09/12/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 2209