alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Brian MOORE, Petitioner, v. NEW JERSEY.

No. 19-7129

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

             [LETTERHEAD OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P. APPEARS HERE]

                      CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following registration
statements of Vastar Resources, Inc. (the "Company"), Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 33-80850), Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-87814),
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-87816), Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 33-87818), Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-24077),
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-77095), Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 333-93777), Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-86310) and
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-79481), of our report dated January
14, 2000 on our audit of the remaining proved reserves attributable to the
properties owned by the Company as of December 31, 1999.

                                          /s/ RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.

March 2, 2000
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-10898

Summary Calendar

_____________________

In the Matter of: HAROLD W. SMITH, III,

Debtor,

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

HAROLD W. SMITH, III,

Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee.

________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(4:94-CV-788-E)

________________________________________________

June 20, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Harold Smith asserts, pro se, that the district court erred in

dismissing his appeal of the bankruptcy court's denial of his

request for judicial disqualification and in affirming its orders

granting the Government's motion to compel debtor to file tax

returns and denying debtor's motion to quash.
2

Pursuant to FED. R. APP. P. 3(c), a notice of appeal must

"designate the judgment, order, or part thereof appealed from".

Smith's notice of appeal to the district court designated only the

bankruptcy court's order of October 11, 1994, not its July 14,

1994, order denying judicial disqualification. Because the

district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over orders not

designated in a timely notice of appeal, Cole v. Tuttle, 540 F.2d

206, 207 (5th Cir. 1976), Smith's appeal of the July 14, 1994,

order was properly dismissed.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in affirming

the orders compelling Smith to file tax returns and denying his

motion to quash, because the bankruptcy court had sufficient

authority pursuant to General Order 93-1 § 9(i), from the Local

Bankruptcy Rules of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

Northern District of Texas, and the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C.

§105(a), to compel Smith to file those returns.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.
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

Eastern District of Texas

10/25/2023

Case 4:23-cv-00956-SDJ Document 5 Filed 10/25/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 50
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) .

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

on (date) ; or

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

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

I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

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:

Case 4:23-cv-00956-SDJ Document 5 Filed 10/25/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 51
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000911167
<NAME>                        Ariel Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     USD
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         12,858,830
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,464,591
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,554,055
<INVENTORY>                                    2,260,737
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               19,549,511
<PP&E>                                         5,019,381
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,626,938
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 26,281,875
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9,592,590
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       9,775,150
<OTHER-SE>                                     16,500,942
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   26,281,875
<SALES>                                        3,073,529
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,073,529
<CGS>                                          1,393,598
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,393,598
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,703,885
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             142,961
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,008,817)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,008,817)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,008,817)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.31)
        


</TABLE>
Phillip T. MERRITT, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 18-6442.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

*815Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District denied.
Valentin CASTANON-RENTERIA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6796.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 21

                  Subsidiaries of ACT Teleconferencing, Inc.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                  Jurisdiction of
                              Name                                                 Incorporation
                              ----                                                 -------------
     <S>                                                                          <C>
     ACT Teleconferencing Services, Inc., formerly ACT
     Capital, Inc.                                                                 Minnesota, USA

     ACT VideoConferencing, Inc.,
     formerly NBS, Inc.                                                            Minnesota, USA

     ACT Research, Inc.                                                             Colorado, USA

     ACT Teleconferencing Canada Inc.                                                  Canada

     ACT Teleconferencing Limited
     (60% owned)                                                                   United Kingdom

     ACT Business Solutions Limited, formerly Multimedia and
      Teleconferencing Services Limited (96.7% owned)                              United Kingdom

     ACT Teleconferencing France SA                                                    France

     ACT Teleconferencing GmbH                                                         Germany

     ACT Teleconferencing BV                                                         Netherlands

     ACT Teleconferencing Belgium SA                                                   Belgium

     ACT Teleconferencing (Pty) Limited                                               Australia

     ACT Teleconferencing Hong Kong Limited                                           Hong Kong
</TABLE>

                                    Page 48
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 BEAUMONT DIVISION

DAVID ALLEN JONES §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-412

JAMES PAYNE, ET AL. §

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff David Allen Jones, a prisoner confined at the Shelby County Jail, proceeding pro

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

This action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Discussion

On December 1, 2023, a document mailed to Plaintiff at the Shelby County Jail, his last

known address, was returned to the court as undeliverable. Eastern District of Texas Local Rule CV11(d) requires pro se litigants to keep the clerk advised in writing of their current address. As of this

date, Plaintiff has not provided the court with his current address. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action sua

sponte for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., 905 F.3d

835, 844 (5th Cir. 2018); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “The power to

invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases

and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626,

629-30 (1962); Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997).

Case 1:23-cv-00412-MAC-CLS Document 7 Filed 12/04/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 48
Without a current mailing address, the court is unable to contact Plaintiff or proceed with this

action. Therefore, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules warrants dismissal without

prejudice for want of prosecution.

Recommendation

This action should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Objections

Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and

file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the

magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an

aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal

conclusions accepted by the district court, except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R.

CIV. P. 72. 

2

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 4th day of December, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00412-MAC-CLS Document 7 Filed 12/04/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 49
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

JAMES ELWYN SYKES, #2467248

VS. 

SHERIFF DEPUTY STARKY, et al., 

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-894

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

 The above-entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate 

Judge Aileen G. Durrett. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #15), 

which contains proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of Plaintiff’s 

motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Dkts. #5, #6). No 

objections having been timely filed, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the 

Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the same as the findings and conclusions of the Court. 

It is accordingly ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order

and preliminary injunction (Dkts. #5, #6) are DENIED. 

Case 4:23-cv-00894-ALM-AGD Document 18 Filed 09/19/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 87
R.S. RAGHAVENDRA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

No. 18-480.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

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

Justice SOTOMAYOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Mary WILKERSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5933.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 10/01/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       80,712
COMMITMENTS
  27,504    3,113    3,769   42,807   71,925   74,080   78,807    6,632    1,905

CHANGES FROM 09/24/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      3,854)
   1,864      947       37    1,032    2,761    2,933    3,745      921      109

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    34.1      3.9      4.7     53.0     89.1     91.8     97.6      8.2      2.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       87)
      15        4        1       43       41       58       46
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 10/01/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:      248,975
COMMITMENTS
  85,218   27,334    1,967  147,185  214,250  234,370  243,551   14,605    5,424

CHANGES FROM 09/24/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -21,117)
  -4,225  -10,665      679  -13,511   -9,256  -17,057  -19,242   -4,060   -1,875

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    34.2     11.0      0.8     59.1     86.1     94.1     97.8      5.9      2.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      166)
      47       20       11       75       55      126       82
```

----

Updated October 25, 2013
Anthony Russell WILSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7433

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.
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 09/17/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       92,536
COMMITMENTS
  25,531    2,739    6,384   52,109   78,511   84,024   87,634    8,512    4,902

CHANGES FROM 09/10/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     10,114)
     994      -15    2,406    4,031    5,287    7,431    7,678    2,683    2,436

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    27.6      3.0      6.9     56.3     84.8     90.8     94.7      9.2      5.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       89)
      16        7        4       48       40       66       49
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 09/17/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:      302,049
COMMITMENTS
  84,942   42,721    3,246  191,041  241,254  279,229  287,221   22,820   14,828

CHANGES FROM 09/10/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     23,242)
  10,053   -4,467  -12,547   18,906   35,245   16,412   18,231    6,830    5,011

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    28.1     14.1      1.1     63.2     79.9     92.4     95.1      7.6      4.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      171)
      48       25       14       75       64      130       96
```

----

Updated September 20, 2013
The State



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 2, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00739

- CR

Andres R. CISNEROS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR0183

Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED. Time is

extended to June 3, 2014.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

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

court on this 2nd day of June, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
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

Eastern District of Texas

8/21/23

Case 2:23-cv-00374-JRG-RSP Document 5 Filed 08/21/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 38
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) . I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

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

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

I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

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:

Case 2:23-cv-00374-JRG-RSP Document 5 Filed 08/21/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 39
Keith SMEATON, Petitioner, v. Alan NELSON, et al.

No. 19M41

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ of certiorari out of time under Rule 14.5 denied.