alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Marathon Oil Corporation, 

Marathon Oil EF LLC, and /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 28, 2014

No. 04-14-00650-CV

Michael A. CERNY and Myra L. Cerny, Individually and as Next Friends of Cameron A. Cerny, 

A Child,

Appellants

v.

MARATHON OIL CORPORATION, Marathon Oil EF LLC, and Plains Exploration & 

Producing Company,

Appellees

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-05-00118-CVK

Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On August 27, 2014, appellants filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal the following 

orders signed by the trial court on August 14, 2014:

1) Order Granting Summary Judgment as to Marathon Oil EF LLC;

2) Order Granting Summary Judgment as to Plains Exploration & Producing Company; 

and 

3) Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Evidence.

On October 14, 2014, appellants filed an opposed “Motion to Dismiss for Want of 

Jurisdiction or Alternatively, Motion to Abate and Remand.” In the motion, appellants argue 

that because Rule 301 provides that only one final judgment shall be rendered in a cause, and 

because the trial court signed three separate orders with no “Mother Hubbard” language, there 

does not exist a final appealable order and we should therefore dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 301. Alternatively, appellants request that we abate the appeal 

pursuant to Rule 27.2 and remand the cause to the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 27.2. 

We disagree that the two orders granting summary judgment cannot be appealed absent 

one final judgment. The orders complained of here finally dispose of all parties and causes of 

action. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001). Accordingly, this 

court has jurisdiction over the appeal. See H.B. Zachry Co. v. Thibodeaux, 364 S.W.2d 192, 193 
(Tex. 1963) (holding that prior interlocutory orders merge into subsequent order disposing of 

remaining parties and issues, creating a final and appealable judgment); Starr v. Koppers Co., 

398 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1966, writ ref’d n.r.e.); see also Columbia 

Rio Grande Reg’l Hosp. v. Stover, 17 S.W.3d 387, 391 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2000, no 

pet.) (“Once an order has been entered disposing of all remaining parties and issues, all 

the orders merge, creating a final and appealable judgment.”); see also Azbill v. Dallas Cnty. 

Child Protective Servs. Unit of the Tex. Dep’t of Human & Regulatory Servs., 860 S.W.2d 133, 

137 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993, no writ) (“[I]t is not necessary that all the dispositive rulings 

appear in one document before a judgment can become final.”). Appellants’ motion is therefore 

DENIED. 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 28th day of October, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 13

- 00344

- CV

Trial Court Cause

Number: 2006

- 54103

Style: Zurich American Insurance Company

v Sandra A. Debose

Date motion filed * : October 8, 2014

Type of motion: Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for En Banc Reconsideration

Party filing motion: Appellee

Document to be filed: Motion for En Banc Reconsideration

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: October 8, 2014

Number of previous extensions granted: 0

Date Requested: November 7, 2014

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: November 7, 2014

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other:

Judge's signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: October 16, 2014
Unassociated Document


 













Amendment No. 1


to


MEDL Mobile Holdings, Inc.


2011 Equity Incentive Plan







By virtue and in exercise of the powers under Section 2(b) of the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) of MEDL Mobile Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), a Nevada corporation, the Board of Directors of the Company hereby adopts this Amendment No. 1 to Equity Incentive Plan:







1.           Section 3(a) of the Plan is stricken in its entirety and is amended to read as follows:







“(a)           Share Reserve.  Subject to Section 9(a) relating to Capitalization Adjustments, the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock of the Company that may be issued pursuant to Stock Awards after the Effective Date shall not exceed ten million (10,000,000) shares.”







2.           Except as aforesaid, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
Johnny L. SHELTON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7057

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33466]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11840]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 27

[WT Docket No. 21-333; Report No. 3187; FR ID 89296]


Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Petition for Reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the 
Commission's proceeding by Michael P. Goggin, on behalf of AT&T 
Services, Inc.

DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before June 17, 
2022. Replies to oppositions must be filed on or before June 27, 2022.

ADDRESS: Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Mort, Associate Bureau Chief, 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 202-418-2129 or via email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f78482849699d99a988583b7919494d9909881"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d5a6a0a6b4bbfbb8baa7a195b3b6b6fbb2baa3">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
document, Report No. 3187, released May 23, 2022. The full text of the 
Petition can be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not 
send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.
    Subject:In the Matter of Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
Announces Procedures for Appeals of Relocation Payment Clearinghouse 
Decisions, published at 87 FR 30836, May 20, 2022 in WT Docket No. 21-
333. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.


Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-11840 Filed 6-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
PRIME RETAIL, INC.

                     EXHIBIT 12.1: COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS
       TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DISTRIBUTIONS AND DIVIDENDS

                    (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT FOR RATIO INFORMATION)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31
                                                                 -------------------------------------------
                                                                        1997                    1996
                                                                 -------------------     -------------------
<S>                                                                 <C>                       <C>     
 Income (loss) before minority interests                            $  3,493                  $  3,057
 Interest incurred                                                     9,600                     6,387
 Amortization of capitalized interest                                     79                        63
 Amortization of debt issuance costs                                     608                       823
 Amortization of interest rate protection
      contracts                                                          336                       319
 Less interest earned on interest rate
      protection contracts                                               (39)                      (84)
 Less capitalized interest                                              (915)                     (613)
                                                                    --------                  --------
      Earnings                                                        13,162                     9,952
                                                                    --------                  --------

 Interest incurred                                                     9,600                     6,387
 Amortization of debt issuance costs                                     608                       823
 Amortization of interest rate protection
      contracts                                                          336                       319
 Preferred stock distributions and dividends                           3,093                     5,236
                                                                    --------                  --------
      Combined Fixed Charges and
         Preferred Stock Distributions and Dividends                  13,637                    12,765
                                                                    --------                  --------
 Excess of Combined Fixed Charges
      and Preferred Stock Distributions
      and Dividends over Earnings                                   $  (475)                 $  (2,813)
                                                                    =======                   ========
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

WONDERSHARE TECHNOLOGY 

GROUP CO LTD.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:24-cv-00046

Jury Trial Demanded 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW PROOF OF SERVICE

Plaintiff Display Technologies, LLC respectfully submits this Motion to Withdraw the proof of 

service filed at Docket 4, and respectfully submits that it should not be deemed as service of process on 

Defendant Wondershare Technology Group Co Ltd. 

Defendant appeared on February 20, 2024 (Dkt. 5) and filed an Application to Extend the 

Deadline to Respond until March 21, 2024 (Dkt. 6), on which date Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss 

at Dkt. 7.

A corrected Affidavit of Service is here concurrently filed with an effective service date of 

March 25, 2024. 

New and sufficient service filed, Plaintiff now requests the withdrawal of the previous and 

insufficient service (Dkt. 4).

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Randall Garteiser

Randall Garteiser

 Texas Bar No. 24038912

 rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com

Case 2:24-cv-00046-JRG-RSP Document 9 Filed 04/04/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 103
GARTEISER HONEA, PLLC

119 W. Ferguson Street

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: (903) 705-7420

Facsimile: (903) 405-3999

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned attorney represents and confirms that a conference was conducted with 

opposing counsel prior to filing this Motion, and counsel is unopposed to the relief requested herein.

/s/ Randall Garteiser

Randall Garteiser

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to 

electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per 

Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on April 4, 2024. 

/s/ Randall Garteiser

Randall Garteiser

Case 2:24-cv-00046-JRG-RSP Document 9 Filed 04/04/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 104
Mario PALACIOS-CORDERO, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7517.

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.
```

```

----

Updated March 29, 2013
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Section 1350 Certifications**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Strategic Diagnostics Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, based on such officer’s knowledge, that: 

|   | (i) | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the ”Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 

 

|               |   |   |                                                                     |
|--------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: May 15, 2006 |   |   | /s/ Matthew H. Knight                                                    |
|               |   |   |  

 

 

Matthew H. KnightChief Executive Officer

  |
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 119 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on any legisla3 tive day from Thursday, November 20, 2014, through Fri4 day, November 28, 2014, on a motion offered pursuant 

5 to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 

6 designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Monday, 

7 December 1, 2014, or until the time of any 
2 

•HCON 119 EH 

1 reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolu2 tion, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate re3 cesses or adjourns on any day from Thursday, November 

4 20, 2014, through Friday, November 28, 2014, on a mo5 tion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its 

6 Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or ad7 journed until noon on Monday, December 1, 2014, or such 

8 other time on that day as may be specified by its Majority 

9 Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, 

10 or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 

11 3 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. 

12 SEC. 2. (a) The Speaker or his designee, after con13 sultation with the Minority Leader of the House, shall no14 tify Members of the House to reassemble at such place 

15 and time as he may designate if, in his opinion, the public 

16 interest shall warrant it. 

17 (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), 

18 when the House adjourns on a motion offered pursuant 

19 to this subsection by its Majority Leader or his designee, 

20 the House shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the 

21 first section of this concurrent resolution. 

22 SEC. 3. (a) The Majority Leader of the Senate or his 

23 designee, after concurrence with the Minority Leader of 

24 the Senate, shall notify the Members of the Senate to reas-
3 

•HCON 119 EH 

1 semble at such place and time as he may designate if, in 

2 his opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. 

3 (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), 

4 when the Senate adjourns on a motion offered pursuant 

5 to this subsection by its Majority Leader or his designee, 

6 the Senate shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the 

7 first section of this concurrent resolution. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 20, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 119 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the 

cess or adjournment of the Senate. House of Representatives and a conditional re-
Douglas BROWNBACK, et al., Petitioners, v. James KING.

No. 19-546.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 30, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-1961

_____________________________

JOHINELL MOLINA,

Appellant,

v.

REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE 

APPEALS COMMISSION and AT&T

SERVICES, INC.,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Reemployment Assistance Appeals

Commission.

Charles Faircloth, Jr., Chairman.

June 25, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Johinell Molina, pro se, Appellant.

Katie E. Sabo, Appellate Counsel, Reemployment Assistance 

Appeals Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellee Reemployment 

Assistance Appeals Commission.

No appearance for Appellee AT&T Services, Inc.
1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2004

___________

Eric Bernard Shields, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Postal Service, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 2, 2007

Filed: April 6, 2007 

___________

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eric Bernard Shields appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his employmentdiscrimination action on res judicata grounds. Upon careful review of the record, we

conclude that the dismissal was proper, for the reasons explained by the district court.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny the pending motions.

______________________________
IN RE John WALLACE, Petitioner.

No. 19-7374.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, '

'

Plaintiff, '

'

' NO. 1:23-CR-66

'

'

versus

AHCEON ALEIDRON, 

a/k/a CAMERON ALEXANDER, '

'

Defendant. '

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION

ON DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for administration of a guilty plea under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. Judge Hawthorn conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed 

by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and issued his Findings of Fact and 

Recommendation on Guilty Plea Before the United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate 

judge recommended that the court accept the Defendant’s guilty plea. He 

further recommended that the court adjudge the Defendant guilty on Counts One and Four of 

the Indictment filed against the Defendant. 

The parties have not objected to the magistrate judge’s findings. The court ORDERS 

that the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of the United States Magistrate 

Judge are ADOPTED. The court accepts the Defendant’s plea but defers acceptance of the 

plea agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

It is further ORDERED that, in accordance with the Defendant’s guilty plea and the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, the Defendant, Ahceon Aleidron, is adjudged 

Case 1:23-cr-00066-MAC-ZJH Document 25 Filed 12/07/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 96
2

guilty as to Count One of the Indictment charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349

(Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud) and Count Four charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) 

(Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering). 

Case 1:23-cr-00066-MAC-ZJH Document 25 Filed 12/07/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 97
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00199-CV

Rhina L. Gervis

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

398th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-1754-10-I

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Court 

orders the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION in accordance with its 

opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 14, 2015
Mark Isaac SNARR, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

No. 18-7201

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.
Irineo PONCE-RECENDIZ, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9776

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.
Jose ARROYO, Petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 19-5254

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MACYS, INC.,

Defendant. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00583-JRG

ORDER

Before the Court is the Corrected Unopposed Motion for Entry of Protective Order (the 

“Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Symbology Innovations, LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 12.) The Parties 

jointly request entry of the proposed protective order attached to the Motion. (Id. at 1; Dkt. No. 

12-1.) The proposed protective order includes as Appendix A an Undertaking of Experts or

Consultants Regarding Protective Order (“Undertaking”). (Id.) However, the Undertaking does 

not include the proper case caption for this proceeding—instead, it simply includes placeholders 

for plaintiff, defendant(s), and the case number(s). (Id.) 

Due to the Motion including an Undertaking without the correct case caption, the Court 

finds that the Motion should be and hereby is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Parties 

are ORDERED to refile a joint proposed protective order with the correct case caption, consistent 

with this Order, within two business days of entry of this Order. 

Case 2:23-cv-00583-JRG Document 16 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 198
2 

____________________________________

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 19th day of April, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-00583-JRG Document 16 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 199