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 INC., AT&T SERVICES INC., 

AT&T MOBILITY LLC and AT&T CORP.

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP

(Lead)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANT AT&T CORP.’S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, Defendant AT&T Corp. (“AT&T 

Corp.”) hereby states the following:

1. AT&T Corp., a New York corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T 

Inc.

2. AT&T Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a publicly traded company on the New 

York Stock Exchange. There is no one person or group that owns 10% or more of the stock of 

AT&T Inc. 

Dated: July 17, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Deron R. Dacus

Deron R. Dacus (TBN 00790553)

ddacus@dacusfirm.com

THE DACUS FIRM, P.C.

821 ESE Loop 323

Suite 430

Tyler, Texas 75701

Telephone: 903.705.1117

Facsimile: 903.581.2543

Counsel for Defendant AT&T Corp.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 23 Filed 07/17/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 882
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing document was filed electronically on July 17, 2023

pursuant to Local Civil Rule CV-5(a) and has been served on all counsel who are deemed to 

have consented to electronic service.

/s/ Deron R. Dacus

 Deron R. Dacus

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 23 Filed 07/17/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 883
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 03/26/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      520,001
COMMITMENTS
  95,267   33,053  137,323  267,727  330,708  500,317  501,084   19,684   18,917

CHANGES FROM 03/19/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -9,211)
  -3,020   -6,330   -1,494   -6,895   -3,828  -11,409  -11,652    2,198    2,441

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    18.3      6.4     26.4     51.5     63.6     96.2     96.4      3.8      3.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      157)
      49       35       62       62       67      137      140
```

----

Updated March 29, 2013
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS, INC., petitioner, v. TEMPNOLOGY, LLC, nka Old Cold LLC.

No. 17-1657.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2019.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
Harold PERSAUD, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-216.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Donald J. TRUMP, et al., Petitioners, v. DEUTSCHE BANK AG, et al.

No. 19-760.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     Company's consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of
     operations and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
     consolidated financial statements together with the related footnotes
     thereto.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000911082
<NAME>                        SAM HOUSTON RACE PARK
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         4,315
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,629
<ALLOWANCES>                                   99
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9,366
<PP&E>                                         32,544
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,388
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 37,522
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,662
<BONDS>                                        52,118
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (24,407)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   37,522
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               8,317
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7,423
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,662
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,685)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,685)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,685)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

____________________________________ 

) 

MYCHOICE, LLC, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00507-JRG-RSP 

v. ) 

) 

TAIV, INC., ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

___________________________________ ) 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE READY FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Plaintiff MyChoice, LLC, pursuant to this Court’s Standing Order Regarding Readiness 

for Scheduling Conference, hereby notifies this Court that Defendant Taiv, Inc. filed its answer on 

April 9, 2024, and it filed contemporaneously therewith Defendant Taiv Inc.’s Opposed Motion to 

Transfer Venue to the District of Massachusetts Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). There are no 

related cases.

Dated: April 10, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

/s / Michael C. Gilleran

Michael C. Gilleran (Mass. BBO No. 192210) 

Pro hac vice allowed 

michael.gilleran@fisherbroyles.com 

FISHERBROYLES, LLP 

75 State Street, Suite 100, PMB 4418 

Boston, Massachusetts 02109 

Direct: 781.489.5680 

 Mobile: 339.237.1384 

LEAD ATTORNEY 

/s/ Chris P. Perque___

Chris P. Perque 

Texas State Bar No. 24005828 

FisherBroyles, LLP 

2925 Richmond Ave., Suite 1200 

Houston, TX 77098 

Case 2:23-cv-00507-JRG-RSP Document 15 Filed 04/10/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 254
2 

Phone: 832.604.4417 

Facsimile: 832.377.5929 

Email: chris.perque@fisherbroyles.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the above date all counsel of record who are deemed to have 

consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this filing via the Court’s CM/ECF 

filing system. 

/s/ Chris P. Perque___

Chris P. Perque 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00507-JRG-RSP Document 15 Filed 04/10/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 255
Youras ZIANKOVICH, Petitioner, v. COLORADO.

No. 18-1537.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado denied.
James Ryan TAYLOR and Steven Vincent Smith, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7581.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

# **SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

#  

The undersignedhereby certify that this report complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the informationcontained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:   August 6, 2004 | By:                                                | /s/ Roger E. Gower |   |
|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------|--------|
|                                   | Roger E.  Gower                                    |
|                                   | President  and Chief Executive Officer             |
|                                   |                                               |
|                                   |                                               |
| Dated:   August 6, 2004 | By:                                                | /s/ Thomas P. Maun |   |
|                                   | Thomas P.  Maun                                    |
|                                   | Chief  Financial Officer  Chief Accounting Officer |

 

----
Wayne M. KLOCKE, Independent Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Locke, Petitioner, v. The UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON.

No. 19-927

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

CHRISTINA WATSON,

Plaintiff, 

v.

INTUIT, INC., 

Defendant. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-01053-

ALM-AGD

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the United 

States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On September 9, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report 

(Dkt. #26) recommending that Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #6) be granted in part 

and denied in part. No Party filed objections to the Report. 

Accordingly, having received the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court is of the 

opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the 

Magistrate Judge’s report as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #6) is 

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s hostile work 

environment claim (Count Four) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies. It is finally ORDERED that the remainder of 

Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #6) is DENIED. 

 

Case 4:23-cv-01053-ALM-AGD Document 30 Filed 09/25/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 433
2 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 4:23-cv-01053-ALM-AGD Document 30 Filed 09/25/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 434
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

DAVID THOMAS, #79719, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

PENNY CLARKSTON, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-473-JDK-JDL 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff David Thomas, a Smith County Jail inmate proceeding pro se, filed 

this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United 

States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 

recommendations for disposition. 

On January 30, 2024, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the 

Court dismiss this case without prejudice for want of prosecution and Plaintiff’s 

failure to comply with a Court order. Docket No. 10. A copy of this Report was sent 

to Plaintiff. However, no objections have been received. 

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and 

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court 

examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. 

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), 

Case 6:23-cv-00473-JDK-JDL Document 12 Filed 03/20/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 35
2 

superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 

file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore 

reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and 

reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 

918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the 

standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 

the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to 

law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 10) as the findings of this Court. It is 

therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of 

prosecution and Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an order of the Court. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20th March, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00473-JDK-JDL Document 12 Filed 03/20/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 36
No. 6:23-cv-00553

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

National Labor Relations Board et al.,

Defendants.

ORD ER

Before the court is a motion by the American Hospital Association (AHA) for leave to file an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs’ 

motion for summary judgment. Doc. 26. AHA represented that defendants “indicated that they ‘take no position’” on AHA’s motion, 

but defendants later indicated their opposition in a footnote of their 

cross-motion for summary judgment. See Doc. 34 at 42–43 n.175

(“The court should reject the American Hospital Association 

(AHA)’s proposed brief as it raises novel arguments beyond the 

scope of the issues raised by Plaintiffs.”).

Federal district courts have inherent authority to allow the filing 

of amicus briefs. United States v. Louisiana, 751 F. Supp. 608, 620 

(E.D. La. 1990). For guidance, district courts commonly refer to 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 in deciding whether or not 

to allow an amicus brief. United States ex rel. Gudur v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, 512 F. Supp. 2d 920, 927 (S.D. Tex. 2007).And the Fifth 

Circuit has explained that courts would be “well advised to grant 

motions for leave to file amicus briefs unless it is obvious that the 

proposed briefs do not meet Rule 29’s criteria as broadly interpreted.” Lefebure v. D’Aquilla, 15 F.4th 670, 676 (5th Cir. 2021)

(quoting Neonatology Assocs., P.A. v. Comm’r, 293 F.3d 128, 133 (3d 

Cir. 2002)).

AHA has met Rule 29’s criteria as broadly interpreted. Rule 29 

only requires that the putative amicus state “the movant’s interest” 

and “the reason why an amicus brief is desirable and why the matters 
- 2 -

asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case.” Fed. R. App. P. 

29(a)(3). AHA is clearly an interested party as it “represents the interests of more than 5,000 hospitals, health care systems, and other 

health care organizations” that “have a strong interest in ensuring 

that NLRA is not misinterpreted in ways that inhibit their ability to 

rely on contract workers.” Doc. 27 at 5. 

As defendants point out, an amicus “cannot raise an issue raised 

by neither of the parties absent exceptional circumstances.” Christopher M. ex rel. Laveta McA. v. Corpus Christi Indep. Sch. Dist., 933 F.2d 

1285, 1292 (5th Cir. 1991). The court will not use the amicus brief 

for that purpose. But the proposed brief could be helpful to the court 

at least insofar as it demonstrates how one industry views the jointemployer rule applying to it. Accordingly, the American Hospital 

Association’s motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief (Doc. 26) is 

granted, and the proposed brief (Doc. 27) is deemed filed.

So ordered by the court on February 8, 2024.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge
Jose SANTILLAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9493

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 07, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Randy Ethan HALPRIN, Petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 18-9676

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.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2 02 3

- 1 961

_____________________________
J OHINELL M OLINA , Appellant,

v.

R EEMPLOYMENT A SSISTANCE A PPEALS C OMMISSION and AT&T S ERVICES , I NC

. , Appellee s

.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Reemployment Assistance Appeal s Commission

. Charles Faircloth, Jr.
, Chairman

. June 25, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R O WE , B ILBREY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

J ohinell Molina, pro se, Appellant

. Katie E. Sabo, Appellate Counsel, Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellee Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission

. No appearance for Appellee AT&T Services, Inc.
Bradley Joseph VANZANT, Petitioner, v. Keith YORDY, Warden.

No. 18-9845

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.
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 09/10/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      143,096
COMMITMENTS
  50,172   35,051    9,168   67,663   77,221  127,003  121,440   16,093   21,656

CHANGES FROM 09/03/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      6,178)
   3,216    2,108    2,171      644    2,147    6,031    6,426      147     -248

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    35.1     24.5      6.4     47.3     54.0     88.8     84.9     11.2     15.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      184)
      49       46       36       58       57      126      127
```

----

Updated September 13, 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                9
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                         (12)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        (8)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
ORDER - PAGE 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION 

QJ TEAM, LLC AND FIVE POINTS

§

HOLDINGS, LLC, individually and on §

behalf of all other persons similarly §

situated, § CIVIL ACTION NO. 

§ 4:23-cv-01013-SDJ

Plaintiffs, §

§

v. § CLASS ACTION

§

TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF §

REALTORS, INC., et al., §

§

§

Defendants. §

____________________________________ ________________________________

JULIE MARTIN, MARK ADAMS, AND §

ADELAIDA MATTA, individually and on §

behalf of all other persons similarly §

situated, § CIVIL ACTION NO. 

§ 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ

Plaintiffs, §

§

v. § CLASS ACTION

§

TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF §

REALTORS, INC., et al., §

§

§

Defendants. §

____________________________________ ________________________________

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AS TO KELLER 

WILLIAMS AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES

ON THIS DAY, the Court considered Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (“Keller Williams”), 

and Heyl Group Holdings LLC, The Loken Group, Inc., Hexagon Group, LLC, DMTX, LLC, 

Case 4:23-cv-01013-SDJ Document 200-1 Filed 03/18/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 730
ORDER - PAGE 2

Keller Willis San Antonio, Inc., San Antonio Legacy Group, LLC, and DJSMM, LLC’s

(collectively, the “Released Keller Williams Defendants”) Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings 

as to Keller Williams and Affiliated Entities (the “Motion”). Upon review of the Motion, the 

documents on file, and any arguments of counsel, the Court finds that the Motion should be, and 

hereby is, GRANTED. 

IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned cases are stayed against Keller Williams and 

the Released Keller Williams Defendants until further order. Any rulings or judgments that might 

occur in this case while proceedings are stayed as to Keller Williams and the Released Keller 

Williams Defendants will not bind the QJ Team Plaintiffs, the Martin Plaintiffs, Keller Williams, 

or the Released Keller Williams Defendants (collectively, the “Parties”), and the Parties will not 

argue claim or issue preclusion arising from such rulings or judgments. If, for any reason, final 

approval pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 of a settlement resolving Plaintiffs’ claims 

is not granted and the Parties are otherwise unable to resolve these actions, proceedings in these 

cases will recommence as to Keller Williams and the Released Keller Williams Defendants from 

the stage at which they were stayed.

Case 4:23-cv-01013-SDJ Document 200-1 Filed 03/18/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 731