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

United States District Court

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

AARON CARSON CHEEK (1)

§

§

§

§

§

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:24-CR-00016-

ALM-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 twenty (20) months, with no term of supervised release to 

follow. 

Case 4:24-cr-00016-ALM-AGD Document 18 Filed 06/08/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 58
2 

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

the Fort Worth, Texas area, or any other medical facility, if appropriate. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 4:24-cr-00016-ALM-AGD Document 18 Filed 06/08/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 59
Motion Granted; Order filed April 1, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00169-CV

____________

KYLE TAUCH, TRANQUILITY APARTMENTS GENERAL 

CORPORATION AND TRANQUILITY APARTMENTS LTD., 

Appellants/Cross-Appellees

V.

JOEL R. SCOTT, Appellee/Cross-Appellant

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-21305

ORDER

On February 24, 2014, Kyle Tauch, Tranquility Apartments General 

Corporation, and Tranquility Apartments Ltd. (jointly referred to as the Tauch 

parties) filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s final judgment signed 

November 25, 2013. On March 10, 2014, Joel R. Scott also filed a notice of appeal. 

On March 24, 2014, the Tauch parties filed an agreed motion for an order 
2

directing that the deposit for the preparation of the reporter’s record be evenly 

divided. We GRANT the motion and issue the following order:

We ORDER the Tauch parties and Joel R. Scott to each pay one-half of the 

required deposit for preparation of the reporter’s record in this appeal, or $1,850 

per side, to the official court reporter for the 80th District Court, Michelle Tucker.

The parties also shall be equally responsible for payment of any remaining balance 

to the official court reporter. The assessment of costs in this court’s judgment shall 

remain subject to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.4. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Wise.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

DEVIN BERNARD ROYAL, #10130 §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv622

GREGG COUNTY, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Devin Bernard Royal, a former pretrial detainee confined in the Gregg County 

Jail, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the above-styled and numbered civil rights 

lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition was referred for findings of fact, conclusions 

of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

On December 26, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended petition. (Dkt. #3).

Plaintiff was instructed to file his amended petition within 30 days of the Court’s Order.

On January 29, 2024, the order to file an amended petition was returned to the Court as 

undeliverable. The envelope stated: “Return to sender, ” “Unable to Forward, ” and “Unclaimed.”

(Dkt. #4).

As of today, Petitioner has not filed an amended petition, nor has he filed a motion for 

extension of time to file an amended petition. In the Order, Petitioner was warned that the failure 

to comply with the Order may result in the dismissal of the petition. He has failed to prosecute this 

case. 

The exercise of the power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or obey a court order is 

committed to the sound discretion of the Court and appellate review is confined solely in whether 

the Court’s discretion was abused. Green v. Forney Eng’g Co., 589 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1979); Lopez 

Case 6:23-cv-00622-JCB-KNM Document 5 Filed 02/14/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 19
2

v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1978). Not only may a district court 

dismiss for want of prosecution upon motion of a defendant, but it may also, sua sponte, dismiss 

an action whenever necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Anthony 

v. Marion Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164 (5th Cir. 1980). 

 Recommendation

It is therefore recommended that the petition be dismissed without prejudice for want of 

prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, any party may 

serve and file written objections to the findings and recommendations contained in the Report.

A party’s failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen days after being served with a copy 

shall bar that party from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations and, except on grounds of plain error, from appellate review of unobjected-to 

factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. 

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on 

other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen 

days).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of February, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00622-JCB-KNM Document 5 Filed 02/14/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 20
Roger William CAMPBELL, II, aka Roger William Campbell, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6926.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 26, 2020

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION

Case No. 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Temporarily Substitute Lead Counsel. 

(Dkt. No. 85.) The motion is denied, since the Court does not favor temporary changes in Lead counsel. 

However, Plaintiff's Lead counsel is hereby excused from participation in the September 16, 2024, 

motion hearing. 

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON 

WIRELESS and VERIZON CORPORATE 

SERVICES GROUP, INC.,

Defendants.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 86 Filed 09/13/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 6168
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LOOPS LLC, LOOPS FLEXBRUSH LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

PHOENIX TRADING, INC., DBA AMERCARE 

PRODUCTS INC., WENDY HEMMING,

Defendants-Appellees

H&L INDUSTRIAL, DOES, 1 THROUGH 50, 

INCLUSIVE,

Defendants

______________________ 

2017-1316

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Washington in No. 2:08-cv-01064-

RSM, Judge Ricardo S. Martinez.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

STEPHEN MICHAEL HOGAN, San Diego, CA, argued for 

plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by ROBERT 

STEELE, Miller & Steele, Oceanside, CA.
 

 BROOKS F. COOPER, Draneas & Huglin, PC, Lake 

Oswego, OR, argued for defendants-appellees. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 March 13, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 02/18/14                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       62,482
COMMITMENTS
  15,728    5,891    2,342   28,468   40,670   46,538   48,903   15,944   13,579

CHANGES FROM 02/11/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -4,392)
    -858   -2,488       69   -1,956   -1,560   -2,745   -3,979   -1,647     -413

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    25.2      9.4      3.7     45.6     65.1     74.5     78.3     25.5     21.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       78)
      29        9       12       35       29       68       47
```

----

Updated February 21, 2014
CNO 03.31.2012 EX 10.1






Exhibit 10.1












AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered into the 30th day of April, 2012, between CNO Services, LLC (the “Company”) and Susan L. Menzel (“Executive”).


Recitals


A.The Company and Executive entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of May 25, 2010 (the “Agreement”).


B.The Company and Executive desire to further amend the Agreement to make the changes set forth herein.  Terms not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. 
    
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged:


		
	1.
	Section 5(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended for 2012 and subsequent years to change the Target Bonus to 75% of Executive's Base Salary and to change the maximum annual bonus to 150% of Executive's Base Salary.  All other provisions of Section 5(b) of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.




		
	2.
	All provisions of the Agreement not amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect.






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the date first above written.




CNO SERVICES, LLC




By:   /s/ Edward J. Bonach    
       Edward J. Bonach, President
           
    


                  /s/ Susan L. Menzel    
 Susan L. Menzel
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 65 

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding outreach to families of members 

of the Armed Forces killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 

in other conflicts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2013 

Mr. CALVERT submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding outreach to families of members of the Armed Forces killed in action 

in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in other conflicts. 

Whereas the human burden of the Global War on Terrorism 

has been disproportionately borne by the less than one 

percent of Americans who serve in the military; 

Whereas 2,276 members of the Armed Forces have been 

killed in Afghanistan and 4,474 members of the Armed 

Forces killed in Iraq as of November 11th, 2013; 

Whereas the strength of our military is built upon the men 

and women who serve in uniform and the families who 

support them; and 

Whereas supporting those families who have lost loved ones 

in the Global War on Terrorism demonstrates the comVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:35 Nov 15, 2013 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HC65.IH HC65

sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 65 IH 

mitment of the American people to those families now 

and in the future: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that— 

3 (1) all families that have lost loved ones in uni4 form should be recognized for their sacrifices and for 

5 their dedicated and patriotic support of the United 

6 States; 

7 (2) local communities should recognize and sup8 port those families that have lost a loved one in com9 bat; and 

10 (3) the President should encourage military 

11 bases around the country to organize and host 

12 events to recognize and commemorate the sacrifices 

13 of members of the Armed Forces of all services, and 

14 to encourage the attendance of families within the 

15 local area that have lost loved ones in combat to at16 tend such commemorations. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Wave Systems Corp. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: March 16, 2009

/s/ STEVEN K. SPRAGUE Name: Steven K. Sprague Chief Executive OfficerDated: March 16, 2009

/s/ GERARD T. FEENEY Name: Gerard T. Feeney Chief Financial Officer


The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.

A
signed original of the written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Wave Systems Corp. and will be retained by Wave Systems Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                         JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               197,660
<SECURITIES>                                         1,567,301
<RECEIVABLES>                                        000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         000
<INVENTORY>                                          000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     000
<PP&E>                                               000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       26,352,709<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                000
<BONDS>                                              000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                000
<PREFERRED>                                          000
<COMMON>                                             000
<OTHER-SE>                                           26,002,931
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         26,352,709<F2>
<SALES>                                              000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     23,958<F3>
<CGS>                                                000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     103,565<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      000
<CHANGES>                                            000
<NET-INCOME>                                         (519,442)<F5>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (14.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        000
<FN>
<F1>Included in total assets is Investments in Local Limited  Partnerships of  $24,556,732,  Organizational  costs,
net of $6,667 and Other assets of $24,349.
<F2>Total  liability  and equity  includes  Accounts  payable to  affiliate  of $312,252  and  Accrued  expenses of
$37,526.
<F3>Total revenue includes Investment of $23,208 and Other of $750.
<F4>Included in Other Expenses is Asset Management fees,  related party of $50,765,  General and  administrative of
$42,814 and Amortization of $9,986.
<F5>Net loss includes Equity in losses of Local Limited Partnerships of $439,835.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Fox Joseph SALERNO, Petitioner, v. ARIZONA.

No. 19-5095

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One denied.
To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of
Smith Barney Massachusetts Municipals Fund:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of the Smith Barney Massachusetts Municipals Fund (the "Fund")
for the year ended November 30, 1997, we considered its internal
control, including control activities for safeguarding
securities, in order to determine our auditing procedures for the
purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and
to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide
assurance on the internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles. Those controls include the safeguarding of
assets against unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or
irregularities may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection
of any evaluation of internal control to future periods is
subject to the risk that it may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and
operation may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in the internal control that might be
material weaknesses under standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness
is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of
the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively
low level the risk that errors or irregularities in amounts that
would be material in relation to the financial statements being
audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by
employees in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions.  However, we noted no matters involving the internal
control and its operation, including controls for safeguarding
securities that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined
above.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management, the Board of Trustees of the Fund, and the Securities
and Exchange Commission.




January 15, 1998
# C_2018173EN.01000101.xml

| 22.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/1

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case M.8878 — SEB/ALI)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 173/01)

(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)

On 19 April 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration between SEB and ALI. On 8 May 2018, the notifying party informed the Commission that it withdrew its notification.

---
Exhibit 35.1



Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services,
Inc.



This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered
to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 4, 2017 (the “Agreement”) and
Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2017-4 (the “Trust”),
the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by
AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith. The capitalized terms
used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.



The undersigned certifies
that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the
preceding period from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under
the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.



|By: | /s/ Connie Coffey                       |  | Dated: March 4, 2022
|--- | --------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|    | Connie Coffey                           | 
|    | Executive Vice President, Corporate     | 
|    | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CHRISTINE A. REUTHER AND ANI 

MARIE DIAKATOS,

Petitioners

v.

DELAWARE COUNTY BUREAU OF 

ELECTIONS AND CHRISTINE ROSSI,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 743 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of February, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED as to the following issue, rephrased for clarity:

Does the failure of a write-in candidate or other candidate 

who obtains access to the ballot other than through the filing 

of a nomination petition to timely file a Statement of Financial 

Interests, as required by 51 Pa.Code § 15.3(e), constitute a 

“fatal defect,” precluding the appearance of the candidate’s 

name on the ballot?