alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 6:23-cv-00222

Jay Williams,

Plaintiff,

v.

Cody Barnett,

Defendant.

ORD ER

Plaintiff Jay Williams, an inmate at the Henderson County Jail

proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit complaining of alleged violations of his rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case was 

referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love. On May

12, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that 

this case be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1). Doc. 3. The magistrate judge further recommended that dismissal of this case should count as a qualifying 

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 

F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff has not objected to the report 

and recommendation but has filed a handwritten coupon (Doc. 4), 

apparently in attempt to pay the filing fee.

When there have been no timely objections to a magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for 

clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 

1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court 

accepts its findings and recommendation.

The court agrees that plaintiff’s duplicative, frivolous, and 

malicious filings are an abuse of the judicial process. Plaintiff has 

only continued his pattern of practice since the issuance of the 

report and recommendation, filing numerous additional cases 

with the same deficiencies. See Case Nos. 6:23-cv-256, 6:23-cv257, 6:23-cv-258, 6:23-cv-260, 6:23-cv-263, 6:23-cv-298, 6:23-cvCase 6:23-cv-00222-JCB-JDL Document 5 Filed 06/30/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 20
- 2 -

300, and 6:23-cv-301. Moreover, as plaintiff has been made aware, 

the filing of a handwritten “coupon” is not an acceptable form of 

payment and does not therefore affect the court’s screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Case No. 6:23-cv-00258, Doc. 3.

Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The dismissal of this action under 

§ 1915A(b)(1) counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See 

Adepegba, 103 F.3d at 388. Plaintiff is warned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed in forma 

pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated 

or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). All motions pending in this 

civil action are denied.

So ordered by the court on June 30, 2023.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00222-JCB-JDL Document 5 Filed 06/30/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 21
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-422-JRG-RSP

ORDER

Before the Court is the Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant Valve 

Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 19.) Upon consideration, the Court finds that the Motion 

should be and hereby is GRANTED. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the deadline for the Plaintiff to submit its Response shall 

be extended to March 21, 2024. 

SOCIAL POSITIONING INPUT SYSTEMS, 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

VALVE CORPORATION,

Defendants.

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 20 Filed 03/12/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 151
Paul MARAVELIAS, Petitioner, v. David DEPAMPHILIS

No. 19-34

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire denied.
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-00521-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 01/29/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 211
Michael F. RAMSEY, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK.

No. 18-9367

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Judicial Department denied.
Jeremy J. WALKER, Petitioner, v. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED.

No. 19-1015.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Michael J. WALTON, Petitioner, v. Jack KOWALSKI, Warden.

No. 19-7150

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2328 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2328

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 
                          Clean Lakes Program.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2328

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 
                          Clean Lakes Program.

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

SECTION 1. GRANTS TO STATES

    Section 314(c)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1324(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``$50,000,000'' the first 
place it appears and all that follows through ``1990'' and inserting 
``$50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.

SEC. 2. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

    Section 314(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1324(d)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``Otsego Lake, New York; 
        Oneida Lake, New York; Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania; Swan Lake, 
        Itasca County, Minnesota;'' after ``Sauk Lake, Minnesota;'';
            (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``By'' and inserting 
        ``Notwithstanding section 3003 of the Federal Reports 
        Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (31 U.S.C. 1113 note; 109 
        Stat. 734-736), by''; and
            (3) in paragraph (4)(B)(i) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$25,000,000''.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE.

    (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In the case 
of any equipment or products that may be authorized to be purchased 
with financial assistance provided under this Act, it is the sense of 
the Congress that entities receiving such assistance should, in 
expending the assistance, purchase only American-made equipment and 
products.
    (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing financial 
assistance under this Act, the head of each Federal agency shall 
provide to each recipient of the assistance a notice describing the 
statement made in subsection (a) by the Congress.
    (c) Notice of Report.--Any entity which receives funds under this 
Act shall report any expenditures on foreign-made items to the Congress 
within 180 days of expenditure.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 12, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Artak OVSEPIAN and Kenneth Wayne Johnson, Petitioners v. UNITED STATES

No. 18-7262

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.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# ACTION:

60-Day notice and request for comments.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) federal agencies to publish a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         concerning each proposed collection of information before submission to OMB, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice complies with that requirement.                    

# DATES:

Submit comments on or before August 1, 2022.

# ADDRESSES:

Send all comments to, Donald Smith, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Women's Business Ownership, Small Business Administration.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Donald Smith, Deputy Assistant Administrator,                         *Donald.smith@sba.gov*                         202-205-7279, or Curtis B. Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, 202-205-7030                         *curtis.rich@sba.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Women's Business Center Program is funded by the SBA to provide entrepreneurial development services and current business owners. There is no data collection currently in place to systematically track program outcomes such as client satisfaction, adoption of new business practices or change in business size or scope. This data collection fills the gap by administering a service outcome survey to a random sample of WBC clients.

*OMB Control Number:*                     3245-0402.                

*Title:*                     “Women's Business Center Program”.                

*Description of Respondents:*                     Entrepreneurial development services and current business owners.                

*Form Number:*                     N/A.                

*Annual Responses:*                     2,087.                

*Annual Burden:*                     700.                

Curtis Rich,

Agency Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 2022-11583 Filed 5-27-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
Unassociated Document


Exhibit 10.15







MEMO FROM SIBLING ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC.







Date: October 1, 2011







From: Gerald Sullivan, Chairman







TO: Steve Carlson







RE: Conversion of Debt







As Chairman of Sibling Entertainment, I want to thank you for your willingness to help us by agreeing to accept shares of the common stock of SIBE in exchange for our obligations to you. Please accept this as support for the issuance as noted below:







On October 1, 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with Stephen C. Carlson, CEO, pursuant to which the Company issued 596,747 shares of common stock valued $119,349 to


convert debt for services as CEO for the period April 1, 2011 to September 30, 2011. These were issued on October 3, 2011.







Please note that these shares are restricted under Rule 144 and cannot be traded for at least six (6) months. Also note that the stock trades infrequently, and there may be no trading market for the shares when you are ready to trade. Also note that the Series common stock, which you are an owner of, may convert into common stock and that event may cause dilution to the common stock, and reduce the share price, or market for the stock.












Thanks again, and I look forward to working with you going forward.







/s/ GERALD F. SULLIVAN


Gerald F. Sullivan


Chairman
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

UNITED STATES and STATE OF TEXAS 

ex rel. DANIEL W. ELLIOTT, M.D. and 

LISA A. MINSLOFF, M.D.,

 Plaintiffs,

V.

SOUTHEAST TEXAS MEDICAL 

ASSOCIATES, LLP; STEWARD HEALTH 

CARE SYSTEM; ONPOINT LAB, L.L.C.; 

BAPTIST HOSPITALS OF SOUTHEAST 

TEXAS; MUHAMMAD AZIZ, M.D.; 

JAMES HOLLY, M.D.; MARY CASTRO, 

M.D.; VIJAY KUMAR, M.D.; MICHAEL 

THOMAS, M.D.; SYED ANWAR, M.D., 

CAESAR DEIPARINE, M.D.; RONALD 

PALANG, M.D.; ABSAR QURESHI, M.D.; 

and DEAN HALBERT, M.D.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-00329

 JUDGE MICHAEL J. TRUNCALE

ORDER CONTINUING TEMPORARY STAY OF DISCOVERY

This Court previously entered an Order Granting in Part Defendants’ Joint Motion for a 

Temporary Stay of Discovery. [Dkt. 114]. The Court hereby EXTENDS the stay of discovery until 

March 12, 2024.

Counsel should note that this stay does not affect Relators’ Motion to Compel [Dkt. 117] and any 

deadlines relating thereto currently pending before United States Magistrate Judge Christine L. Stetson.

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 23rd day of January, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 128 Filed 01/23/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1209
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 08/20/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      139,168
COMMITMENTS
  45,551   34,497    7,382   70,065   75,535  122,998  117,414   16,170   21,754

CHANGES FROM 08/13/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      5,266)
   3,002     -419     -153    2,423    4,777    5,272    4,205       -6    1,061

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    32.7     24.8      5.3     50.3     54.3     88.4     84.4     11.6     15.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      183)
      49       47       32       60       65      123      133
```

----

Updated August 23, 2013
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

BATES-COOPER SLOAN FUNERAL 

HOME, LLP and C.R.C PARTNERSHIP,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

WEST AMERICAN INSURANCE 

COMPANY, ET AL.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-101-RWS-JBB

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion to Remand. Docket No. 11. Defendants 

removed this action from state court and the case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge

Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. Docket No. 1. Plaintiffs seek to remand the case 

back to state court, arguing that there is not complete diversity among all parties. Docket No. 11. 

The Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Plaintiffs’ claims against SB Insurance, 

an improper party joined solely to destroy diversity, be dismissed and that Plaintiffs’ motion to 

remand be denied. See Docket No. 14. 

Because no objections have been received, Plaintiffs are barred from de novo review by 

the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations 

and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings 

and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville,

Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-

RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021).

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. 

Case 5:23-cv-00101-RWS-JBB Document 16 Filed 04/15/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 112
Page 2 of 2

Upon such review, the Court has determined the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate 

Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and 

contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the 

District Court. It is further

ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion to Remand (Docket No. 11) is DENIED. 

Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant SB Insurance, LLC d/b/a Jones Insurance Agency are 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is ORDERED to terminate Defendant SB 

Insurance from the case. 

.

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 15th day of April, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00101-RWS-JBB Document 16 Filed 04/15/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 113
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/29/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      189,627
COMMITMENTS
  38,816   25,791   29,643  100,101  106,756  168,560  162,191   21,067   27,436

CHANGES FROM 01/22/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      4,684)
   1,297    2,099    1,717    1,809    1,247    4,823    5,063     -139     -379

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    20.5     13.6     15.6     52.8     56.3     88.9     85.5     11.1     14.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      188)
      49       41       46       68       79      142      145
```

----

Updated February 1, 2013
Ralph Loren BARENZ II, Petitioner, v. ALASKA.

No. 19-6648.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020.

Petition for rehearing denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.1
 NAVARRE CORPORATION 2004 STOCK PLAN
RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT
  Name of Participant:Grant Date:Number of Award Shares:
    

shares of Common Stock
 Vesting Schedule:
    
    Issue Dates
    
    Number of Award Shares[first anniversary]
    
    [1/3][second anniversary]
    
    [1/3][third anniversary]
    
    [1/3]
 Restricted Stock Unit Agreement
 GRANT OF STOCK UNIT AWARD
  ACCEPTANCE
  VESTING OF STOCK UNITS
 Vesting Schedule
 Page 1 of 4




---



##### 



Termination of Employment or Service
 Change of Control Transaction
 ISSUANCE OF SHARES
 Issuance of Shares
 Withholding Taxes
 Page 2 of 4




---



##### 



TRANSFERABILITY OF STOCK UNITS
  THIS AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO PLAN.
  NO GUARANTEE OF CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT
  MISCELLANEOUS
 Binding Effect
 Governing Law
 Page 3 of 4




---



##### 



Entire Agreement
 Amendment and Waiver
  NAVARRE CORPORATION
    
    PARTICIPANTByIts
 Page 4 of 4
1526 Gilpin Avenue

Wilmington, Delaware 19806

United States of America

Tel: 302-449-9010

Fax: 302-353-4251

www.devlinlawfirm.com

MAY 22, 2024

VIA CM/ECF

The Honorable Sean D. Jordan

United States District Court Eastern District of Texas 

United States Courthouse

7940 Preston Road, Suite 111

Plano, TX 75024

Re: Implicit, LLC v. Capital One, National Association, Civil Action No. 4:23-

cv-00770-SDJ 

Dear Judge Jordan:

Plaintiff Implicit, LLC (“Implicit” or “Plaintiff”) and Defendant Capital One, 

National Association (“Capital One” or “Defendant”) hereby notify the Court that they 

have no present dispute as to claims of privileged documents.

Respectfully submitted,

DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC

By: James M. Lennon

James M. Lennon

jlennon@devlinlawfirm.com

Timothy Devlin 

tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com

Christopher Clayton 

cclayton@devlinlawfirm.com

DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC

1526 Gilpin Avenue

Wilmington, DE 19806

Telephone: (302) 449-9010

Facsimile: (302) 353-4251

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Implicit, LLC

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP

By: Erik J. Halverson_______ 

Melissa R. Smith

Texas Bar No. 24001351

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP

303 South Washington Avenue

Marshall, Texas 75670

Telephone: (903) 934-8450

Facsimile: (903) 934-9257

Email: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com

Devon C. Beane

K&L GATES LLP

70 West Madison Street, Suite 3100

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Telephone: (312) 807-4436

Facsimile: (312) 827-8000

Email: devon.beane@klgates.com

Case 4:23-cv-00770-SDJ Document 27 Filed 05/22/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 214
Devlin Law Firm

May 22, 2024

Page 2 of 2

Erik J. Halverson

K&L GATES LLP

Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: 415-882-8238

Email: erik.halverson@klgates.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

Capital One, National Association

cc: All counsel of record

Case 4:23-cv-00770-SDJ Document 27 Filed 05/22/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 215