alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, '

'

Plaintiff, '

'

versus ' NO. 1:23-CR-19

'

JUAN SUAREZ-PUPO, '

'

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 Zack 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 Two 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. The court ORDERS the 

Defendant’s attorney to read and discuss the presentence report with the Defendant and file any 

objections to the report BEFORE the date of the sentencing hearing. 

Case 1:23-cr-00019-MAC-ZJH Document 28 Filed 12/04/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 87
2

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

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, the Defendant, Juan Suarez-Pupo, is adjudged 

guilty as to Counts One and Two of the Indictment charging violations of 18 U.S.C. §§111(a)(1) 

and 111(b) (Assaulting a Federal Officer—Bodily Injury).

________________________________________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 4th day of December, 2023.

Case 1:23-cr-00019-MAC-ZJH Document 28 Filed 12/04/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 88
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATION AND CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000911583
<NAME> STEINWAY MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1998
<CASH>                                           7,181
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,119
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,916
<INVENTORY>                                     87,159
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               157,461
<PP&E>                                          78,713
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,075
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 269,651
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,832
<BONDS>                                        111,786
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      79,553
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   269,651
<SALES>                                         79,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,100
<CGS>                                           53,056
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,519
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,242
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   152
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,838
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,293
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,826
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,467
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,467
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

I, Roy Dar, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of EMAK Worldwide, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information related to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

 

 
|   |   |   | /s/ Roy Dar                                                    |
|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   | Roy Dar

Vice President, Controller

(Principal Accounting Officer) |

 

 

Dated: August 22, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33495-33496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11811]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; NEI Clinical Applications.
    Date: July 15, 2022.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 
6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3400, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Jeanette M. Hosseini, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Eye Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3400, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-2456, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c2a8a7a3aca7b6b6a7aa82afa3abaeecacabaaeca5adb4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c16191d1219080819143c111d151052121514521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; NEI Translational Research Program on Therapy for Visual 
Disorders (R24).

[[Page 33496]]

    Date: July 22, 2022.
    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 
6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3400, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Ashley Fortress, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Eye Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3400, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-8613, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f5e4c57535a461159504d4b4d5a4c4c7f51565711585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d8b9abb0b4bda1f6beb7aaacaabdabab98b6b1b0f6bfb7ae">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, 
Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 27, 2022.
Victoria E. Townsend
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-11811 Filed 6-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE ex rel. GEORGE HASSING v. JAMES H. QUINN and Others.1

June 25, 1909.

Nos. 16,109—(33).

At a hearing of a petition for the establishment of a judicial ditch in Jackson county pursuant to Laws of 1907, e. 448, relator appeared specially for the sole purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court and objected to any assessment being made upon his land for the reason that it was not described in the petition, and because of the failure to describe it the petition was too defective to confer jurisdiction upon the court. His objection was overruled, Quinn, J., and an assessment was levied against his land. Upon application to this court a writ of certiorari was issued.

Writ discharged.

*Albert R. Allen,*for plaintiff.

*E. H. Nicholas*and *Dean d Palmer,*for defendants.

1

 Reported in 121 N. W. 898.

Per Curiam.

Conceding that relator properly raised the question by appearing specially and objecting to the petition, there is no merit in the claim that the description of the lands was defective. A description of the lands proposed to be drained is all the statute requires. This does not mean a description by subdivision to correspond with individual ownership; and if an entire section is within the-district, it may be described as a section, although the subdivisions are owned by different persons.

Writ discharged.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13

    AMENDMENT DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 5, 1999 TO THE 1996 CRESCENT REAL ESTATE
               EQUITIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT INCENTIVE PLAN

                           3.2 VESTING OF OPTION. Except as provided in Section
                  1.11 and this Section 3.2, and except to the extent otherwise
                  specified by the Committee and set forth in the Option
                  Agreement, one-seventh of each Option shall vest on the first,
                  second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh anniversaries
                  of the date of grant, provided that the Employee is employed
                  by the Partnership or the General Partner on such date or is
                  an Executive Officer on such date. If the fair market value of
                  the Common Stock equals or exceeds $50.00 for each of ten (10)
                  consecutive trading days (determined based on the closing
                  price on each such day), an additional 250,000 Units (or such
                  lesser number as may then be unvested) of each Option shall
                  become fully vested and exercisable, provided that the
                  Employee is employed by the Partnership or the General Partner
                  on such date or is an Executive Officer on such date. In the
                  event that vesting of the Option is accelerated pursuant to
                  the preceding sentence, the remaining unvested portion of the
                  Option shall continue to vest according to the otherwise
                  applicable vesting schedule.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 

ROGER REMBERTO ROCHA-PALMA,

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NUMBER 4:24-CR-00009-SDJ

ORDER ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY

The Court referred this matter to the United States Magistrate Judge for administration 

of a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The Magistrate Judge 

conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed by Rule 11 and issued Findings of 

Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court 

accept Defendant’s guilty plea and adjudge Defendant guilty on Count One of the 

Indictment. 

The parties have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings. 

The Court hereby ADOPTS the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of the 

United States Magistrate Judge. In accordance with Defendant’s guilty plea, the 

Court finds Defendant Roger Remberto Rocha-Palma GUILTY of Count One of 

the Indictment, charging a violation of Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) - Reentry of a 

Deported Alien. 

Case 4:24-cr-00009-SDJ-KPJ Document 19 Filed 04/29/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 34
- 1 - 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC § 

 § 

v. § CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP 

 § (Lead Case) 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. § 

 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC § 

 § 

v. § CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00457-JRG-RSP 

 § (Member Case) 

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE § 

COMPANY, et al § 

ORDER 

The above-captioned cases are hereby ORDERED to be CONSOLIDATED for all 

pretrial issues with the LEAD CASE, Case No. 2:23-cv-00454. All parties are instructed to file 

any future filings in the LEAD CASE. Individual cases remain active for trial. 

The Clerk is instructed to add the consolidated Defendants into the Lead Case and their 

corresponding Lead and Local Counsel only. Additional counsel may file a Notice of Appearance 

in the Lead Case if they wish to continue as counsel of record in the lead consolidated action. 

Counsel who has appeared pro hac vice in any member case may file a Notice of Appearance in 

the Lead Case without filing an additional application to appear pro hac vice in the Lead Case. 

Counsel who have not appeared in a member case at the point when it is consolidated into the Lead 

Case should file a Notice of Appearance only in the Lead Case, and such Notice should state the 

relevant member case. 

Case 2:23-cv-00457-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 11/02/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 67
- 2 - So Ordered this

Nov 2, 2023

Case 2:23-cv-00457-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 11/02/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 68
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER SCOT TAYLOR §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-411

JAMES PAYNE, ET AL. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING VENUE

Plaintiff Christopher Scot Taylor, an inmate confined at the Shelby County Jail, proceeding

pro se, brings this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge

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

Analysis

Plaintiff complains that he has been deprived of life and liberty without due process of law,

in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Additionally, Plaintiff complains the Defendants have denied

him a speedy trial for the charges against him and have suppressed his Petitions for Writ of Habeas

Corpus, in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Finally, Plaintiff complains that the

Defendants’ conduct amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. The Defendants are all employed in Shelby County, Texas. 

The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1981, et seq., under which this case is brought, does not

contain a specific venue provision. Accordingly, venue in civil rights cases is controlled by 28

U.S.C. § 1391. Jones v. Bales, 58 F.R.D. 453 (N.D. Ga. 1972), aff’d per curium, 480 F.2d 805 (5th

Cir. 1973). When, as in this case, jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship, 28

U.S.C. § 1391 provides that venue is proper only in the judicial district where the Defendants reside

or in which the claim arose. 

Case 1:23-cv-00411-MJT-CLS Document 6 Filed 11/17/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 53
The claims which form the basis of Plaintiff’s complaint occurred in ShelbyCounty, Texas. 

Additionally, all of the Defendants appear to reside in ShelbyCounty, Texas. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 124, Shelby County is located in the Eastern District of Texas. As a result, venue is proper in the

Eastern District of Texas. 

While Shelby County is in the Eastern District of Texas, it is in the Lufkin Division of the

district, rather than the Beaumont Division. When a case is filed in the wrong district or division,

the court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or

division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

For the reasons set forth above, this case should be transferred to the Lufkin Division of the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. A separate Transfer Order shall be

entered in accordance with this Memorandum.

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 17th day of November, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00411-MJT-CLS Document 6 Filed 11/17/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 54
d1279320_ex4-42.htm




Exhibit 4.42


 







NOTICE OF PARTIAL CANCELLATION OF TOTAL COMMITMENTS


 








	
To:

	
Nordea Bank Finland Plc, London Branch


City Place House


55 Basinghall Street


London


EC2V 5NB

	  
	  	  	  
	
From”

	
Paragon Shipping Inc.


15 Karamanli Street


166 73 Voula


Greece

	  
















	  	
as of 5 August 2011

















Dear Sirs


 


US$89,500,000 term loan facility dated 5 May 2011 (the "Loan Agreement") entered into by (i) Paragon Shipping Inc. as borrower (the "Borrower"), (ii) the banks and financial institutions named in the Loan Agreement as Lenders (iii) the banks and financial institutions named in the Loan Agreement as Lead Arrangers, (iv) the banks and financial institutions named in the Loan Agreement as Swap Banks, (v) you as Bookrunner, (vi) you as Agent and (vii) you as Security Trustee.


 


We refer to the Loan Agreement. Words and expressions defined in the Loan Agreement shall have the same meanings when used in this letter unless the context otherwise requires.


 


We write to notify you that, following the cancellation of the Shipbuilding Contract in respect of Hull 619, we wish to cancel part of the Total Commitments in an amount of $22,603,600 (being the Advance Drawdown Amount in respect of Hull 619) pursuant to clause 8.11 of the Loan Agreement.


 


Notwithstanding clause 8.13(b) of the Loan Agreement, we agree that cancellation of such amount will take effect on the date when you sign this letter as Agent to confirm your agreement on behalf of the Lenders to such cancellation and we acknowledge that in accordance with clause 8.14 of the Loan Agreement such cancellation of that portion of the Total Commitments will be permanent.


 








	
/s/ Robert Perri

	  	  
	 	 	 
	
Director


For and on behalf of


Paragon Shipping Inc.

	  
















	
Acknowledged and agreed on  16th  August 2011

	  











	
/s/ Illegible

	  	
/s/ MD Sheppard


	 	 	 











	
on behalf of


Nordea Bank Finland c, London Branch


(as Agent acting for and on behalf of the Lenders)
In Re Masao YONAMINE, petitioner.

No. 18-6526.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
XUE JIE HE, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF the NEW YORK CITY COMPTROLLER.

No. 18-9778

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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: DARRYL CARTER, 

Debtor. 

______________________________ 

DARRYL CARTER, 

Appellant, 

 v. 

RON L. BARBER, 

Appellee.

No. 16-60034 

BAP No. 14-1581 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Kurtz, Dunn, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted August 9, 2017**

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Darryl Carter appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s 

(“BAP”) judgment dismissing as moot Carter’s request for injunctive relief, and 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 15 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-60034 

vacating and remanding the remainder of the bankruptcy court’s judgment in 

Carter’s adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). 

We review de novo BAP decisions and apply the same standard of review that the 

BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re 

Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The BAP properly concluded that Carter’s request for injunctive relief was 

moot because Carter sought to enjoin an unlawful detainer proceeding that had 

concluded. See Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc. v. Stanley (In re Nat’l 

Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc.), 152 F.3d 1178, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 1998) (setting 

forth standard of review and explaining that a case is constitutionally moot when 

“an event occurs while a case is pending appeal that makes it impossible for the 

court to grant any effectual relief” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as without merit Carter’s contention that the BAP erred by

construing his “time expenditures” as a request for attorney’s fees. 

To the extent Carter contends that the BAP improperly remanded his 

damages claims to the bankruptcy court instead of resolving them in the first 

instance, we reject such contention as without merit. 

All pending requests and motions are denied. 

AFFIRMED.
Barbara MYERS-MCNEIL, Petitioner, v. NORTH CAROLINA.

No. 19-6696.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina denied.