alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

10/5/2023

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

KATHRYN SNEED and SNEED

EQUESTRIAN ESTATES, LLC,

4:23-cv-00871

JEFFREY GIBBS, CALLI ROUSE,

GIBBS SHOW HORSES, CALLI ROUSE

SHOW HORSES, BLACK BIRD RANCH,

THE BONAPARTE FAMILY LIVING

Jeffrey Gibbs

9017 Chisholm Trail

Crossroads, Texas 76227

Charles S. North

KEARNEY, MCWILLIAMS & DAVIS, PLLC

1235 South Main, #280

Grapevine, Texas 76051

Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 2 Filed 10/05/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 18
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

4:23-cv-00871

0.00

Case 4:23-cv-00871-ALM Document 2 Filed 10/05/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 19
Juan A. MARTIN-DE-NICOLAS, Petitioner, v. AAA TEXAS COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 19-790

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District denied.
John ANZURES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6037

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

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




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 Cadus Corporation (the "Company") on
      Form 10-Q for the three and six month ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
      Blitz, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Cadus Corporation and will be retained by Cadus Corporation and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/
                David BlitzDavid
                BlitzPresident
                and Chief Executive Officer (ChiefExecutive
                Officer and Chief Financial Officer)August
                14, 2008




The
      foregoing certification is furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
      and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
      document.
Kevin FOSTER, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 18-9252

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

Eastern District of Texas Headwater Research LLC 2:23-cv-00398-JRG-RSP Headwater Research LLC 09/05/2023 /s/ Neil A. Rubin Neil A. Rubin CA Bar No. 250761

Russ August & Kabat 

12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90025 nrubin@raklaw.com (310) 826-7474 (310) 826-6991 Print Save As... Reset

Plaintiff

v.

AT&T Inc. et al

Case 2:23-cv-00398-JRG-RSP Document 10 Filed 09/05/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 197
Timothy BARR, petitioner, v. Rebecca PEARSON, et al.

No. 18-8771.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Saddam Samaan Daoud SAMAAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7439

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
eh1200542_s8-ex1002.htm


EXHIBIT 10.2



 







 


AMENDMENT NUMBER 1


 


TO THE







JANUARY  1, 2008 AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF THE


 


MOVADO GROUP, INC.


 


DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR EXECUTIVES












WHEREAS, Movado Group, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Movado Group, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan for Executives (the “Plan”);







WHEREAS, Section 11.5 of the Plan provides that the Company and Movado Retail Group, Inc. (the “Employers”) may amend the Plan, subject to certain limitations on such right as set forth in said Section 11.5, which limitations are not applicable to the terms hereof;







WHEREAS, the Employers now desire to amend the Plan, effective January 1, 2011, to provide for fixed payment date in-service distributions which are scheduled in advance as part of Compensation Deferral Elections, pursuant to the applicable requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended;


 


 




  





  











  






 


NOW THEREFORE, the Employers hereby amend the Plan as follows, effective January 1, 2011:









FIRST:          Section 6.2 of the Plan is hereby amended by the addition of new Section 6.2(e), to read in its entirety as follows:


 


“(e) As part of a Participant’s Compensation Deferral Election, the Participant may elect to receive (in a single lump sum or as the first payment date of ten (10) annual installments) any portion or all of the Compensation deferred under such Compensation Deferral Election on a fixed date elected by the Participant as part of such Compensation Deferral Election, and which date may be prior to the date of the termination of the Participant’s service for the Employers.  Any such election shall be subject to all of the applicable requirements of the Plan, including but not limited to those provided for under Sections 3.1 and 6.l(b).”


 


SECOND:         Except to the extent hereinabove provided, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of EarthShell Corporation (the "Company") for the purposes of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

(1)   The
Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 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 such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated
May 16, 2003

|By: | /s/SIMON K. HODSONSimon K. Hodson
Chief Executive Officer   |  | 
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|By: | /s/D. SCOTT HOUSTOND. Scott Houston
Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---

QuickLinks
Evaristo TOSCANO, Petitioner, v. Joe A. LIZARRAGA, Warden.

No. 19-7066

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0226 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRADLEY JAY HILLIOUS,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 29 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 27 2024

02/27/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0226
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 14, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50475

Summary Calendar

LARRY EDDLIN KEELE,

PetitionerAppellant,

versus

NATANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

RespondentAppellee.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CV-1122

------------------------------------------------------------------

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Larry Keele, Texas prisoner # 1077576, appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition, in which he challenged hisjury-trial conviction on three counts

of indecency with a child. The district court granted Keele a certificate of appealability (COA) on
his federal habeas claim that his jury charge was unconstitutional in that it permitted the jury to

convict himupon less-than-unanimous agreement asto which conduct constituted the offense. Keele

has not made such an express request to expand his COA to include the additional issues of

ineffective assistance oftrial and appellate counsels and arrest without probable cause which he raises

in his brief. Because this court’s review is limited to the issue specified in the grant of COA, these

issues will not be considered. See Lackey v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1997).

Where, as here, there has been no clear adjudication on the merits of an issue raised in state

court, federal habeas review is conducted de novo. See Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 281 n.4

(5th Cir. 2000)(citation omitted). Habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is reserved for vindication

of federal constitutional rights. See Martinez v. Johnson, 255 F.3d 229, 246 (5th Cir. 2001). 

The Supreme Court has not held that the Constitution imposes a jury unanimity requirement.

See Hoover v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 366, 369 & n.2 (5thCir. 1999) (citing Richardson v. United States,

526 U.S. 813, 821 (1999)). A trial court is authorized to instruct a jury that it may find that the

defendant committed an offense by one or more specified means, even if the offense is charged in the

conjunctive. See Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 631 (1991); Capps v. Collins, 900 F.2d 58, 60 n.2

(5th Cir. 1990) (“Use of the conjunctive rather than the disjunctive in the indictment did not oblige

the state to prove both.”). The same is true under Texas state law. See, e.g., Kitchens v. State, 823

S.W.2d 256, 258 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Cruz v. State, 742 S.W.2d 545, 546 (Tex. App. 1988). 

Based upon the foregoing authority, Keele cannot demonstrate constitutional error with

respect to his challenge to the disjunctive jury charge. See Martinez, 255 F.3d at 246. The judgment

of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES 34 AND 35 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          16,858
<SECURITIES>                                    10,899
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,640
<ALLOWANCES>                                       654
<INVENTORY>                                     16,523
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,160
<PP&E>                                          25,662
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,396
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,208
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,585
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           605
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,018
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,208
<SALES>                                         64,279
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,279
<CGS>                                           39,894
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,894
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   180
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,082)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,082)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,082)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.98)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

ZACHARY WAYNE WHITE, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. §

§

FIFTH THIRD BANK, NATIONAL § Case No. 4:23-CV-847

ASSOCIATION, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER OF RECUSAL

The undersigned judge hereby recuses herself with regard to the above-entitled and numbered

civil action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 4:23-cv-00847-SDJ-KPJ Document 15 Filed 10/23/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 617
Scott PETERS, Petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 19-7502

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2137 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2137

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the research and 
 development tax credit to research in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 
               and the possessions of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 1999

 Mr. Crane (for himself, Mr. Rangel, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. 
 Romero-Barcelo, and Mr. Weller) introduced the following bill; which 
            was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the research and 
 development tax credit to research in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 
               and the possessions of the United States.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF RESEARCH CREDIT TO RESEARCH IN PUERTO RICO AND 
              THE POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.

    (a) In General.--Section 41(d)(4)(F) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 (relating to foreign research) is amended by inserting ``, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States'' 
after ``United States''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998.
                                 <all>
```
UAET (02-2008)

Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint

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

CASE AND DEADLINE INFORMATION

Civil Action No.:

Name of party requesting extension:

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

No

If no, please indicate which application this represents: Second

Third

Other ___________

Date of Service of Summons:

Number of days requested: 30 days

15 days

Other _____ days

New Deadline Date: (Required)

ATTORNEY FILING APPLICATION INFORMATION

Full Name:

State Bar No.:

Firm Name:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

Email:

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

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 09/18/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 76
#### Elliot A. Roberts, Respondent, *v.*Anne Moore, Also Known as Anne Ryan & Anne Ryan Moore, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 29, 1973.

*Stanley G. Harvey*for appellant. *Elliot A. Roberts, Nathan Cyperstein*and *James B. Reich*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Plaintiff, an attorney, was engaged by defendant to prosecute the cause of action for the wrongful death of her husband. This cause of action belonged to her deceased husband’s estate (EPTL 5-4.1), of which defendant was appointed administratrix. The retainer agreement signed by defendant, before her appointment as administratrix, lost all force as a binding agreement upon her appointment *(Matter of Meng,*227 N. Y. 264, 269; *Hollenbeck*v. *Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,*215 App. Div. 609, affd. 243 N. Y. 540). So that plaintiff’s fee, as well as necessary expenses and disbursements, for prosecuting the death action and any other services rendered the administratrix in marshalling and distributing the proceeds of the suit as an asset of the estate, became subject to fixation and allowance either by the Supreme Court; in which the action was settled for $40,000, or the Surrogate’s Court (EPTL 5-4.4).

The plaintiff having received notice of claims by others, alleging rights to share as distributees in the decedent’s estate, *710brought the proceeds of the wrongful death action into the Surrogate’s Court and petitioned for final settlement of defendant’s account as administratrix.

The fact that defendant’s interest, as administratrix, in questioning the claims of all alleged distributees by putting them to their proofs, coincided with her interest as a principal distributee, does not make the services rendered defendant by plaintiff any less services to the estate. The services rendered defendant, as distributee, were in no way greater or different from the services rendered her as administratrix on the accounting.

Plaintiff as attorney for the defendant, in her representative capacity as administratrix, as well as distributee, owed her the duty of presenting to the Surrogate all claims against the estate, including his own for allowances and disbursements for total legal services and any fees paid or promised to other attorneys, engaged by him, for services to the estate (SCPA 2110). The Surrogate having full power and authority to determine and fix all attorneys’ fees, allowances and disbursements in the total administration of the estate, finally adjudicated all known claims presented, or which with notice of the accounting' could have been presented, in the course of the proceeding and implicitly included in the fee allowed plaintiff, full and fair compensation for all legal services rendered defendant, as administratrix and distributee, by him or other attorneys in his employ.

The judgment should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with $30 costs to defendant, without prejudice to such relief, if any, as may be available to plaintiff upon appropriate proceedings in the Surrogate’s Court.

Concur — Markowitz, P. J., Lupiano and Quinn, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.
EXHIBIT 99.6














CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Eldorado Gold Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul N. Wright, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









March 27, 2015                      /s/ Paul N. Wright


Paul N. Wright


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Eldorado Gold Corporation and will be retained by Eldorado Gold Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Robert A. Bruggeworth, President and Chief Executive Officer of RF MicroDevices, Inc. (the "Company"), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:(1)        the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscalquarter ended             September 27, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a)             or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)        the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the  financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/Robert A. Bruggeworth                          Robert A. BruggeworthPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 6, 2008

** **

** **

** **

----

** **