alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T'Challa Rhashaed WASHINGTON, Petitioner v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

No. 19-5860

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
Thomas Kevin JENKINS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7250

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
 
 
 
                                                                    Exhibit 24.5


STATE OF 
        ------------------
COUNTY OF 
         -----------------

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY
                               -----------------

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, David F. Bellet, a Director
of JUST FOR FEET, INC., an Alabama corporation, do constitute and appoint Harold
Ruttenberg and Robert C. Wabler, jointly and severally, my true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact, each with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for
me in any and all capacities, to sign (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
JUST FOR FEET, INC. for the fiscal year ended January 31, 1997, pursuant to the
requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) a Registration
Statement on Form S-3 pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, including, if
necessary in connection therewith, a Registration Statement filed under Rule
462(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, and to file the each of such documents
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, together with all exhibits thereto
and other documents in connection therewith, and to sign on my behalf and in my
stead, in any and all capacities, any amendment to said Annual Report and
Registration Statement, incorporating such changes as any of the said attorneys-
in-fact deems appropriate, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said
attorneys-in-fact, or his substitute or substitutes, may do or cause to be done
by virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 23 day of 
April, 1997.


                                          /s/ David F. Bellet
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          David F. Bellet



                                
                                ACKNOWLEDGMENT
                                --------------

     BEFORE me this 23 day of April, 1997, came David F. Bellet,
personally known to me, who in my presence did sign and seal the above and
foregoing Power of Attorney and acknowledged the same as his true act and deed.


                                    /s/ Mavis Davidson
                                    ----------------------------------------
                                    NOTARY PUBLIC

                                    State of New York
                                         -----------------------------------

                                    My Commission Expires:

                                                MAVIS DAVIDSON
                                      NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK
                                              No. 41-4929327
                                        Qualified in Queens County
                                     Commission Expires July 25, 1998
Bernardo OLIVARES-CEPEDA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6133.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Brandon D. WOODRUFF, Petitioner v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

No. 18-1413

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.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.02


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-91438, Form S-3 No. 33-92548, Form S-8 No. 333-03450, Form S-8
No. 333-03452, Form S-8 No. 333-03454, Form S-8 No. 333-13521, Form S-3 No.
333-21905, Form S-3 No. 333-23005, Form S-3 No. 333-33893, Form S-3 No.
333-37273, Form S-3 No. 333-37565, Form S-3 No. 333-38071, Form S-3 No.
333-41049, Form S-3 No. 333-42417, Form S-3 No. 333-47563, Form S-3 No.
333-57863, Form S-8 No. 333-64377, Form S-8 No. 333-64379, Form S-8 No.
333-69728, Form S-3 No. 333-77941, and Form S-8 No. 333-85684) of Crescent Real
Estate Equities Company of our report dated February 9, 2004, with respect to
the combined financial statements of The Woodlands Land Development Company,
L.P., The Woodlands Commercial Properties Company, L.P., and The Woodlands
Operating Company, L.P., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2004.

                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Houston, Texas
March 11, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial OfficerPursuant to
     U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Stephen T. Wills, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Palatin Technologies, Inc., hereby certify, to my
knowledge, that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004
of Palatin Technologies, Inc. (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Palatin Technologies, Inc.

|Dated:  May 13, 2004 | /s/ Stephen T. WillsStephen T. WillsExecutive
     Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
|-------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order DENYING to Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 56]. 1

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

VALVE CORPORATION,

GEARBOX SOFTWARE, L.L.C.,

Defendants.

 CASE NO. 2:23-cv-419-JRG

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDERING DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER 

RULE 12(B)(3) THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT [DKT. 56]

Based on the moving papers and the filings in this case, the Court hereby DENIES Valve 

Corporation’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3). The Court finds that personal jurisdiction 

and venue both are proper over Valve Corporation in this District. 

Venue is proper under § 1400(b) for Defendant Valve Corporation. It maintains a regular

and established business presence in this District as established through Valve Corporation’s

ratification at least two Valve licensed PC Cafés in the EDTX. Dkt. 52 at ¶ 56. These STEAM 

PC gaming Cafés that are both located in this District advertise Valve’s STEAM gaming platform 

and that Valve can inspect these locations at any time are sufficient to establish them as being 

ratified by Valve Corporation for purposes of establishing venue.

Additionally, Valve Corp. has agency over employees that reside in this district that 

perform inspections of its dedicated servers that Valve Corporation promotesits cafes by providing 

servers nearby to provide its user the fastest ping times available at its ratified Steam PC Gaming 

PC Café’s. Dkt 52 at ¶ 59.

Even if venue is not proper under § 1400(b), in the alternative, the Court finds Valve 

Corporation waived venue in its prior Global Settlement And License Agreement with the parties. 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 63-3 Filed 04/22/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1547
Order DENYING to Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 56]. 2

A forum selection clause can operate as a waiver of § 1400(b) because it shows that the parties 

consented to litigate in a particular forum. See 5 Annot. Patent Digest (Matthews), § 36:152.40 

(2020)); Sundesa, LLC v. IQ Formulations, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-06467-AB-MAA, 2020 WL 

8125541, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2020) (Court held that “a forum selection clause can operate 

as a waiver of § 1400(b).”). 

So either Valve Corporation ratified the employees and the locations of the PC Café’s it 

promotes and controls and provides support to such that venue is proper under Section 1400(b)., 

or, the forum selection clause in the GSALA operates as a waiver of § 1400(b).

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 63-3 Filed 04/22/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1548
|  (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. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                     | Avalon      Oil & Gas, Inc. |                                                                                    |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |                            |                                                                                    |   |
| Date:      July 14, 2009 | By:                             | /s/ Kent      Rodriguez                              |   |
|                     |                            | Kent      Rodriguez                                                                     |   |
|                     |                            | Chief      Executive Officer, President, Secretary      and Principal Financial Officer |   |
|                     |                            |                                                                                    |   |
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2253

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to prohibit the use under

that Act of any item or information obtained by trespassing on privately

owned property, or otherwise taken from privately owned property without the consent of the owner of the property.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 17, 1999

Mr. CALVERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to prohibit

the use under that Act of any item or information obtained by trespassing on privately owned property, or

otherwise taken from privately owned property without

the consent of the owner of the property.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Property Owners Pro5 tection Act of 1999’’.
2

•HR 2253 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON USE OF ITEMS AND INFORMATION

2 OBTAINED FROM PRIVATELY OWNED PROP3 ERTY WITHOUT CONSENT.

4 Section 11 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973

5 (16 U.S.C. 1540) is amended by adding at the end the

6 following:

7 ‘‘(f) RESTRICTION ON USE OF ITEMS OR INFORMA8 TION OBTAINED FROM PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY

9 WITHOUT CONSENT.—Any item or information obtained

10 by trespassing on privately owned property, or otherwise

11 taken from privately owned property without the consent

12 of the owner of the property—

13 ‘‘(1) shall not be admissible as evidence in any

14 criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding under

15 this Act; and

16 ‘‘(2) may not otherwise be used to administer

17 this Act.’’.

Æ
John David WILSON, Jr., petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 18M84.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time 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 nine months ended September 30, 2010 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)November
      15, 2010





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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED June 30, 1999 AND
AS OF June 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000911317
<NAME> LAS VEGAS AIRLINES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Sep-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,957
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,957)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  260,325
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (260,325)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (260,325)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (187,829)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (448,154)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.11)


</TABLE>
Katherine MILLER, Petitioner v. Jay INSLEE, Governor of Washington, et al.

No. 18-1492

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.
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 03/19/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      463,432
COMMITMENTS
 114,635  199,035   78,801  238,480  150,843  431,916  428,679   31,516   34,753

CHANGES FROM 03/12/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     28,682)
  -6,705    9,337      804   16,283   -1,396   10,382    8,745   18,300   19,937

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    24.7     42.9     17.0     51.5     32.5     93.2     92.5      6.8      7.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      182)
      57       74       72       37       38      141      145
```

----

Updated March 22, 2013
Stephen D. LEONARD, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-8896.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District denied.
Desroy A. CLARKE, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General.

No. 18-9685

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

BRYAN A. SMITH, #02355741

VS. 

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23cv739 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pro se Petitioner Bryan A. Smith filed a motion to withdraw his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition 

and his motion for an extension of time to respond as to the timeliness of the petition. (Dkt. #16).

Petitioner seeks to dismiss his petition without prejudice. (Dkt. #16). The Court construes his 

motion as a notice of voluntary dismissal. 

Voluntary dismissals are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) that provides, 

in pertinent part, the petitioner “may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice 

of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Carter v. United States, 547 F.2d 258, 259 (5th Cir. 1977) (a party 

“has an absolute right to dismiss” his legal action under Rule 41(a) prior to the filing of an answer 

or motion for summary judgment). “Unless the notice ... states otherwise, the dismissal is without 

prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). “The notice of dismissal is self-effectuating and terminates 

the case in and of itself; no order or other action of the district court is required.” In re Amerijet 

Int’l, Inc., 785 F.3d 967, 973 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Thus, once a party has moved to dismiss 

under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), “the case [i]s effectively terminated,” and “[t]he court has no power or 

discretion to deny [the party’s] right to dismiss or to attach any condition or burden to that right.” 

Bechuck v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 814 F.3d 287, 291 (5th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).

Case 4:23-cv-00739-ALM-AGD Document 17 Filed 12/14/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 30
2 

In the present case, no answer has been filed;1 thus, Petitioner is entitled to the voluntary

dismissal of the case without prejudice. Petitioner’s case was dismissed the moment the notice was 

filed with the Clerk. Moreover, after a notice of voluntary dismissal is filed, the district court loses 

jurisdiction over the case. In re Amerijet Int’l, Inc., 785 F.3d at 973. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s construed notice of dismissal (Dkt. #16) is 

self-effectuating and terminates the case in and of itself, and the case is DISMISSED without 

prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). All motions by any party not previously 

ruled upon are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 Indeed, as of this date, Respondent has not been ordered to respond to the petition. 

Case 4:23-cv-00739-ALM-AGD Document 17 Filed 12/14/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 31
No. 6:23-cv-00441

Lisa Michelle Ballenger,

Plaintiff,

v.

Commissioner, Social Security

Administration,

Defendant.

ORD ER

Plaintiff Lisa Michelle Ballenger initiated this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny social security 

benefits. Following a remand to the Commissioner for further proceedings, plaintiff filed a motion for EAJA attorney’s fees. Doc. 16. 

The motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell. Doc. 17.

The magistrate judge issued a reportrecommending that the motion for fees be granted. Doc. 18. No party objected to the report and 

recommendation. When a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s 

report, the court reviews the record only for clear error. See Douglass 

v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (en

banc).

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 grants the motion for attorney’s fees.

The Commissioner shall pay fees incurred totaling $7,102.50 and 

$402.00 in costs, payable to plaintiff and mailed to plaintiff’s counsel of record.

So ordered by the court on August 14, 2024.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00441-JCB-KNM Document 19 Filed 08/14/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 687
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT 

OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

TRAVIS PARKER GOODMAN

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:23-CR00204-SDJ-AGD

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the above-referenced criminal action, the Court having 

heretofore referred the request for the revocation of Defendant’s supervised release to 

the United States Magistrate Judge for proper consideration. The Court has received 

the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to its 

order. With Defendant having waived allocution before the Court as well as his right to 

object to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court is of the opinion that the findings 

and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s supervised release is hereby

REVOKED. 

It is further ORDERED that Defendant be committed to the custody of the 

Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of nine (9) months with two (2) years of 

supervised release to follow. All prior conditions imposed in the original judgment are 

reimposed here.

Case 4:23-cr-00204-SDJ-AGD Document 27 Filed 06/11/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 86
2 

The Court also recommends that Defendant be housed in a Bureau of Prisons 

facility in Seagoville, Texas, if appropriate.

Case 4:23-cr-00204-SDJ-AGD Document 27 Filed 06/11/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 87