alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2346

___________ Clay Wallace, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Missouri. * John Cottle, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: September 2, 2003 Filed: September 18, 2003

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Missouri inmate Clay Wallace appeals from the District Court’s preservice dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint, without prejudice, as barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). We reverse and remand. In February 2003, Wallace filed a form complaint indicating his “place of present confinement” as Central Missouri Correctional Center. He claimed that the defendant, Lincoln County detective John Cottle, violated his civil rights in June 2001 by conspiring with Kerry Mills to fabricate charges against him. Wallace alleged that Cottle led a raid at Mills’s residence which uncovered a-2- methamphetamine lab; that Mills was charged with manufacturing and possessing methamphetamine; that Cottle later agreed not to prosecute Mills in exchange for his sworn statement indicating the methamphetamine lab belonged to Wallace; that Wallace was then arrested, charged with manufacture of methamphetamine and child endangerment, and held without bail for eighty-four days; and that Mills admitted the conspiracy under oath at the preliminary hearing. Wallace sought actual damages for lost wages, attorney fees, and bail bond fee, plus punitive damages. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Cooper v. Schriro , 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (noting de novo review), we conclude that dismissal was improper under Heck . Wallace contends on appeal that he was never convicted of the charges described in his complaint. Because we do not read his complaint as in any way inconsistent with this contention, we must conclude that Heck does not apply. See Heck , 512 U.S. at 486–87 (holding that a prisoner may not bring § 1983 damages claim if prevailing on merits “would necessarily imply the invalidity of [the prisoner's] conviction or sentence”). Although we note Wallace sued Cottle only in his official capacity and did not allege Cottle acted pursuant to a county custom or policy, we decline to affirm on this basis alone. Had the District Court considered the capacity issue and conveyed its intention to dismiss the complaint on that basis, Wallace could have sought leave to amend his complaint to sue Cottle in his individual capacity. SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Good v. Dauphin County Soc. Servs. for Children & Youth , 891 F.2d 1087, 1096 (3d Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

______________________________
Lawrence W. BLESSINGER, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-1554

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 21, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Jeffrey William SMITH, petitioner, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

No. 18-9154.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 23, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Billy Joe WARDLOW, Petitioner v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

No. 18-9273

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2018425EN.01001601.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 425/16 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9094 — Amcor/Bemis)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 425/07)

1.

On 15 November 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018425EN.01001601-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Amcor Limited (‘Amcor’, Australia), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Bemis Company Inc. (‘Bemis’, United States of America). |

Amcor enters into a full merger within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the Merger Regulation with Bemis.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for Amcor: supply of a broad range packaging solutions; rigid and flexible packaging products for the food, beverage, medical, pharmaceutical, personal care and other consumer goods sectors globally,

—   for Bemis: supply of flexible and rigid plastic packaging for the food, consumer products, medical and other sectors worldwide.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9094 — Amcor/Bemis

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2018425EN.01001601-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

---
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00382-CV

Sheila Wilson

v.

Tarrant County Constables, its 

Agents, Assigns and/or Successors 

in Interest, its Affiants, U.S. Persons 

of Interest (person, firms, 

corporations and political entities), 

and Federal National Mortgage 

Association, its Agents and/or 

Successors in Interest, and its 

Affiants

§

§

§

§

From County Court at Law No. 1

of Tarrant County (2013-002366-1)

December 12, 2013

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
```

```

----

Updated November 21, 2014
Exhibit 31.a

I, John P. Manning, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund V L.P.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 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:



1. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
2. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
3. 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





1. 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 functions):



1. 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
2. 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.



|January 23, 2007 | /s/ John P. Manning
|---------------- | -------------------
|                 | John P. Manning    
|                 | Principal          
|                 | Executive Officer  
|                 |                    
|                 |
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC CO., LTD and 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:23-CV-00641-JRG-RSP 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

Notice is hereby given that Thad C. Kodish, of the law firm Fish & Richardson P.C., enters 

his appearance in this matter for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc. and consents to electronic services of all papers in this action. 

Dated: April 22, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

By: /s/ Thad C. Kodish 

 Thad C. Kodish 

GA Bar No. 427603 

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

1180 Peachtree St NE, 21st Floor 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

Phone: (404) 892-5005 

Fax: (404)892-5002 

Email: tkodish@f.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Samsung Electronics Co., LTD and 

Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Case 2:23-cv-00641-JRG-RSP Document 27 Filed 04/22/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 888
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document has been served on April 22, 2024 to all counsel of record who are deemed to have 

consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). 

/s/ Thad C. Kodish 

Thad C. Kodish 

Case 2:23-cv-00641-JRG-RSP Document 27 Filed 04/22/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 889
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MACY’S, INC.,

Defendant.

 Case No. 2:23-cv-00583-JRG

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DISCOVERY ORDER

Plaintiff Symbology Innovations, LLC, files this Unopposed Motion for Entry of this 

Discovery Order. The Parties have conferred and agreed upon this Discovery Order. Therefore, 

Symbology Innovationsrespectfully requests that the Court approve and enter same, a copy of which 

is attached hereto for the Court’s entry.

Dated: April 15, 2024 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Christopher A. Honea

Christopher A. Honea

 Texas Bar No. 24059967

 chonea@ghiplaw.com

M. Scott Fuller

 Texas Bar No. 24036607

 rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com

GARTEISER HONEA, PLLC

119 W. Ferguson Street

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: (903) 705-7420

Facsimile: (903) 405-3999

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 2:23-cv-00583-JRG Document 13 Filed 04/15/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 155
2

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned hereby certifies that the parties met and conferred and agreed to the 

Joint Proposed Discovery Order. 

/s/ Christopher A. Honea

Christopher A. Honea

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document has been served on all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system. 

/s/ Christopher A. Honea

Christopher A. Honea

Case 2:23-cv-00583-JRG Document 13 Filed 04/15/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 156
# C_2018459EN.01000301.xml

| 20.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9158 — SoftBank/Toyota Motor Corporation/Monet Technologies JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 459/05)

On 12 December 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 32018M9158. 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 32018M9158. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 04/29/14                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      365,215
COMMITMENTS
 110,843  156,329   82,661  149,727   98,821  343,231  337,811   21,984   27,404

CHANGES FROM 04/22/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      3,085)
   4,245   15,674   -9,345    6,677   -3,235    1,577    3,094    1,508       -9

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    30.4     42.8     22.6     41.0     27.1     94.0     92.5      6.0      7.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      192)
      61       75       78       41       36      146      156
```

----

Updated May 2, 2014
YUSONG GONG, Petitioner, v. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, et al.

No. 19-7641.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 98 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative 

to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the 

Federal Government. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 23, 2013 

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. DAINES, Mr. DESANTIS, Mr. 

SALMON, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, and Mr. BARR) 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 relative to applying laws equally to the citizens 

of the United States and the Federal Government. 

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 98 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Congress shall make no law applicable 

3 to a citizen of the United States that is not equally appli4 cable to Congress. 

5 ‘‘SECTION 2. Congress shall make no law applicable 

6 to a citizen of the United States that is not equally appli7 cable to the executive branch of Government, including the 

8 President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public min9 isters and consuls, and all other officers of the United 

10 States, including those provided for under this Constitu11 tion and by law, and inferior officers to the President es12 tablished by law. 

13 ‘‘SECTION 3. Congress shall make no law applicable 

14 to a citizen of the United States that is not equally appli15 cable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, 

16 including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior 

17 courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and es18 tablish. 

19 ‘‘SECTION 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt 

20 any specific provision of this Constitution.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Jesus YUGOPICIO-ROJAS, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5963

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 21, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 23****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:**•** Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-87863) pertaining to the Brightpoint, Inc. 1994Stock Option Plan, as amended, the 1996 Brightpoint, Inc. Stock Option Plan, as amended, theBrightpoint, Inc. Non-employee Director Stock Option Plan and the Brightpoint, Inc. EmployeeStock Purchase Plan, **•** Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-108496) pertaining to the Brightpoint, Inc.Amended and Restated Independent Director Stock Compensation Plan, **•** Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-118769) pertaining to the Brightpoint, Inc. 2004Long-Term Incentive Plan, and **•** Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-147512) pertaining to the registration of sharesin connection with an employmentagreement entered into between Brightpoint, Inc. and an employee of Brightpoint, Inc.of our reports dated February 22, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andschedule listed in Item 15(a) (2) of Brightpoint, Inc. and internal control over financialreporting of Brightpoint, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2007./s/ Ernst & Young LLPIndianapolis, Indiana
James William BRAMMER, Petitioner, v. Raymond MADDEN, Warden.

No. 19-7723.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 6, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
CONSULTING GROUP CAPITAL MARKETS FUNDS (the "Trust")

The following information supplements the disclosure in the
Prospectus of the Trust.  Defined terms have the same meanings as
set forth in the Prospectus.

Supplement dated February 21, 2001 to the Prospectus dated
December 29, 2000


The following revises and supersedes, as applicable, the
information contained in the Prospectus of the Trust on page 16
under "How the subadvisors select the Portfolio's investments,"
and on page 47 under "The Manager."

The name "Scudder Kemper Investments, Inc." has been changed to
"Zurich Scudder Investments, Inc."






TK 2088  12/00 S1
Deounte USSURY, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6155

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Ivaylo DODEV, Petitioner, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON.

No. 19-5311

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One denied.
No. 6:24-cv-00039

Joseph Tovar,

Plaintiff,

v.

FNU Johnson et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff Joseph Tovar, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this 

civil suit without paying the filing fee. The case was transferred to 

this court for proper venue and referred to United States Magistrate 

Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

On April 22, 2024, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order to file an amended 

complaint and pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed 

in forma pauperis. Docs. 4, 6. A copy of the report was mailed to 

plaintiff, who received it on April 29, 2024. Doc. 7. Plaintiff did not 

file written objections.

When no party objects to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for clear error. See Douglass 

v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satisfied that it 

contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. This case is dismissed without prejudice.

So ordered by the court on June 10, 2024.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:24-cv-00039-JCB-JDL Document 8 Filed 06/10/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 38
239 F.2d 151

#### James A. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Chester E. STRAND, Appellee.

No. 15206.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 9, 1956.

Ralph E. Hopper, Oakland, Cal., for appellant.

Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, POPE, Circuit Judge, and HAMLIN, District Judge.

*513PER CURIAM.

Williams appeals from an order of the district court dismissing his complaint seeking damages for his imprisonment arising from the claimed perjury of Strand in the sworn criminal complaint against Williams, claiming the complaint stated falsely that appellant had given Strand on July 6, 1953, a bad check for $153.24, feloniously and with intent to defraud Strand. The complaint was filed February 4, 1956, next after Williams’ complaint in the case of Williams v. McNealy, 9 Cir., 239 F.2d 150, 16 Alaska 509.

As in that case, the Alaska statute, 3 A.C.L.A. § 55-2-7, limiting the period during which suit can be brought for such a tort to two years, is applicable. Williams here makes the same claim of the tolling of the statute by the provisions of 3 A.C.L.A.1949, § 55-2-15, which statute is inapplicable for the reason stated in Williams v. McNealy, supra.

The judgment is affirmed.