alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Eastern District of Texas

DAEDALUS PRIME LLC

2:23-cv-299

TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

CO. LIMITED

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited 

No. 8, Li-Hsin Road 6 

Hsinchu Science Park 

Hsinchu City 300-096 

Taiwan, R.O.C

Michael T. Renaud 

MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO PC 

One Financial Center 

Boston, MA 02111

6/23/23

Case 2:23-cv-00299-JRG Document 8 Filed 06/23/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 371
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

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

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

2:23-cv-299 0.00 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:23-cv-00299-JRG Document 8 Filed 06/23/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 372
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 9, 2010

p0830 

# Order

September 9, 2010

140981

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140981 COA: 296288 Wayne CC: 08-005042-FH JAMES IRELL MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 8, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

D AVIS



### , J., not participating. I recuse myse lf and am not participating because I was on the Court of Appeals panel in this case. See MCR 2.003(B).
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 18 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget 

for the United States Government and for greater accountability in 

the enactment of tax legislation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2013 

Mrs. EMERSON introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for 

a balanced budget for the United States Government 

and for greater accountability in the enactment of tax 

legislation. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HJ 18 IH 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 for ratification: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. Prior to each fiscal year, the Congress 

5 and the President shall agree on an estimate of total re6 ceipts for that fiscal year by enactment into law of a joint 

7 resolution devoted solely to that subject. Total outlays for 

8 that year shall not exceed the level of estimated receipts 

9 set forth in such joint resolution, unless three-fifths of the 

10 total membership of each House of Congress shall provide, 

11 by a rollcall vote, for a specific excess of outlays over esti12 mated receipts. 

13 ‘‘SECTION 2. Whenever actual outlays exceed actual 

14 receipts for any fiscal year, the Congress shall, in the en15 suing fiscal year, provide by law for the repayment of such 

16 excess. The public debt of the United States shall not be 

17 increased unless three-fifths of the total membership of 

18 each House shall provide by law for such an increase by 

19 a rollcall vote. 

20 ‘‘SECTION 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President 

21 shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the 

22 United States Government for that fiscal year in which 

23 total outlays do not exceed total receipts. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
3 

•HJ 18 IH 

1 ‘‘SECTION 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become 

2 law unless approved by a majority of the total membership 

3 of each House by a rollcall vote. 

4 ‘‘SECTION 5. The provisions of this article are waived 

5 for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in ef6 fect. 

7 ‘‘SECTION 6. Total receipts shall include all receipts 

8 of the United States except those derived from borrowing. 

9 Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States 

10 except for those for repayment of debt principal. 

11 ‘‘SECTION 7. This article shall take effect beginning 

12 with the second fiscal year after its ratification.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
Jose Osvaldo ARTEAGA, Petitioner, v. Ken CLARK, Warden.

No. 19-7761.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 30, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2018033EN.01000102.xml

| 30.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 33/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8759 — CEFC/Rockaway Capital/European Bridge Travel)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 33/02)

On 16 January 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in Czech and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8759. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8759. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6282

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ORTEZ ANTOINE PROPST,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-99-325, CA-01-176-1)

Submitted: June 25, 2003 Decided: July 15, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ortez Antoine Propst, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ortez Antoine Propst seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000), and a subsequent order denying his motion for

reconsideration. The notice of appeal was received in the district

court shortly after expiration of the appeal period. Under Fed. R.

App. P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), the

notice of appeal is considered filed as of the date Propst properly

delivered it to prison officials for mailing to the court. The

record does not reveal if or when Propst complied with the

requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). Accordingly, we remand

the case for the district court to obtain this information from the

parties and to determine whether the filing was timely under

Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack. The record, as

supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further

consideration.

REMANDED
# C_2018412EN.01000201.xml

| 14.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8795 — Brookfield/Schoeller Industries/Schoeller Allibert)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 412/03)

On 15 March 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8795. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8795. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 40 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect 

the rights of crime victims. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2013 

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona (for himself, Mr. COSTA, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. 

SCHWEIKERT, Mr. SALMON, Mr. JONES, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. MEADOWS, 

Mr. NUNNELEE, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. BENTIVOLIO, Mr. FLEMING, and Mr. 

YODER) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to protect the rights of crime victims. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 40 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. The rights of a crime victim to fairness, 

3 respect, and dignity, being capable of protection without 

4 denying the constitutional rights of the accused, shall not 

5 be denied or abridged by the United States or any State. 

6 The crime victim shall, moreover, have the rights to rea7 sonable notice of, and shall not be excluded from, public 

8 proceedings relating to the offense, to be heard at any re9 lease, plea, sentencing, or other such proceeding involving 

10 any right established by this article, to proceedings free 

11 from unreasonable delay, to reasonable notice of the re12 lease or escape of the accused, to due consideration of the 

13 crime victim’s safety and privacy, and to restitution. The 

14 crime victim or the crime victim’s lawful representative 

15 has standing to fully assert and enforce these rights in 

16 any court. Nothing in this article provides grounds for a 

17 new trial or any claim for damages and no person accused 

18 of the conduct described in section 2 of this article may 

19 obtain any form of relief. 

20 ‘‘SECTION 2. For purposes of this article, a crime vic21 tim includes any person against whom the criminal offense 

22 is committed or who is directly and proximately harmed 

23 by the commission of an act, which, if committed by a 

24 competent adult, would constitute a crime. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HJ 40 IH 

1 ‘‘SECTION 3. This article shall be inoperative unless 

2 it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution 

3 by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 

4 within 14 years after the date of its submission to the 

5 States by the Congress. This article shall take effect on 

6 the 180th day after the date of its ratification.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

DEC 1 2 2023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

§

§ CASE NUMBER 4:23-CR-00268

v.

ROBBERTA MARIE KHAN (4)

§

§

§

§

ORDER

On October 21, 2020, the President signed into law the Due Process Protections Act,

Pub. L. No. 116-182, 134 Stat. 894 (Oct. 21, 2020), which amends Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 5 (Initial Appearance). Counsel should immediately read the amendment to

Rule 5(f)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which became effective upon

enactment, and is entitled Reminder of Prosecutorial Obli ation .

By this written Order - issued to the prosecution and defense counsel - the Court confirms

the disclosure obligation of the prosecutor under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its

progeny, and the possible consequences of violating such Order under applicable law.

This written Order is entered pursuant to Rule 5(f)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure and is in addition to any oral order entered by the Court on the first scheduled court date

when both the prosecutor and defense counsel were present.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this December 12, 2023

Case 4:23-cr-00268-SDJ-KPJ Document 13 Filed 12/12/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 28
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 50600 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Juan Raul Salas**

**- Sanchez,** 

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:20

- CR

- 942

- 1

Before **Wiener, Dennis,** and **Haynes,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * Juan Raul Salas

- Sanchez appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation . He argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it allows a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum of two years of imprisonment and one year of supervised

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 26, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-50600 Document: 00516180462 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2022No. 21

- 50600

2 release based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, Salas

- Sanchez has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition and a letter brief conceding correctly that the issue is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553

- 54 (5th Cir. 2019)

. He explains that he has raised the issue only to preserve it for possible further review. Accordingly, because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1 969), Salas

- Sanchez ’s motion is **GRANTED** , and the district court’s judgment is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 21-50600 Document: 00516180462 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2022
Kristopher Eric BENJAMIN, Petitioner, v. Tom MCGINLEY, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Coal Township, et al.

No. 19-7818.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 03/18/14                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:      128,009
COMMITMENTS
  23,307    7,703    6,162   91,528  110,574  120,997  124,439    7,012    3,570

CHANGES FROM 03/11/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     21,596)
  -1,066     -552      -33   21,947   21,770   20,848   21,185      748      411

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    18.2      6.0      4.8     71.5     86.4     94.5     97.2      5.5      2.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       93)
      16        5        7       57       38       76       47
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 03/18/14                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:      287,638
COMMITMENTS
  76,272   47,355    4,547  189,473  219,684  270,292  271,586   17,346   16,052

CHANGES FROM 03/11/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     19,939)
     131    3,770   -4,963   21,311   17,323   16,479   16,130    3,460    3,809

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    26.5     16.5      1.6     65.9     76.4     94.0     94.4      6.0      5.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      184)
      55       28       12       78       64      140       97
```

----

Updated March 21, 2014
Changes to Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Changes to Director Compensation 
 In 2011, the Compensation Committee reviewed the
competitiveness of the director compensation program, and as part of this conducted a benchmarking exercise using the comparator group used to benchmark the CEO compensation. On February 15, 2012 the Board of Directors approved the
recommendation of the Compensation Committee to change the director compensation program from April 1, 2012. Under the new program, Directors will receive a flat annual fee and will not receive any additional daily fees for performing their
duties as a Director. The new program will consist of: 
  

	•	 	 An annual retainer of $190,000, paid quarterly, to the Chairman of the Board; 



 

	•	 	 An annual retainer of $90,000, paid quarterly, for all other NEDs; 



 

	•	 	 An annual retainer of $10,000 for the Chairman of the Compensation Committee; 



 

	•	 	 An annual retainer of $16,000 for the Chairman of the Audit Committee; 



 

	•	 	 An annual retainer of $8,000 for the Chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee; 



 

	•	 	 An annual retainer of $5,000 for the members of the Audit Committee; 



 

	•	 	 No additional daily fees for attendance at Board or Committee meetings or calls; 



 

	•	 	 Directors may receive an additional daily fee of $2,000 for additional days provided at the specific request of the CEO. 



Directors will continue to receive an annual grant of stock options equal to $45,000, based on the closing stock price for Corporation stock on the date
prior to grant and will still be required to take one quarter of their annual retainer fee in stock in the Corporation, taken at market price on the date issued. 

  
 31
# C_2018079EN.01000102.xml

| 2.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8798 — TA Associates/OTPP/Flexera Holdings)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 79/02)

On 20 February 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8798. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8798. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---