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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 2:24-cv-00093-JRG

(Lead Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS 

MACHINES CORP.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 2:24-cv-00064-JRG

(Member Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT IBM’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO FILE REPLY REGARDING MOTION TO TRANSFER (DKT. 78)

On this date the Court considered Defendant IBM’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of 

Time to File Reply Regarding Motion to Transfer (Dkt. 78) (“Unopposed Motion”), filed by 

Defendant International Business Machines Corp.’s (“Defendant” or “IBM”) and Plaintiff 

VirtaMove Corp. (“Plaintiff” or “VirtaMove”). Based on the motion and the grounds set forth 

therein, and the agreement of the Parties in the motion, the Court finds that good cause has been 

established and the Unopposed Motion should be granted.

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 85-1 Filed 09/26/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 4070
2

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that IBM’s time to file its reply in support 

its Motion to Transfer shall be extended from September 30, 2024 to October 16, 2024 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 85-1 Filed 09/26/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 4071
# C_2017384EN.01001002.xml

| 14.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 384/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 384/10

---

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR NETWORK AND INFORMATION SECURITY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2016

(2017/C 384/37)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://www.enisa.europa.eu/about-enisa/accounting-finance

---
# C_2020345EN.01011101.xml

| 16.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 345/111 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 345/111

---

P8_TA(2018)0389

EU-Mauritius Agreement on the short-stay visa waiver ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 October 2018 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mauritius on the short-stay visa waiver (12396/2017 — C8-0177/2018 — 2017/0167(NLE))

(Consent)

(2020/C 345/24)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (12396/2017), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (12396/2017),

| — | having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mauritius on the short-stay visa waiver (12395/2017), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mauritius on the short-stay visa waiver (12395/2017),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2), point (a), and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0177/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2), point (a), and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0177/2018),

| — | having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0303/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0303/2018),

| 1. | Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Mauritius. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---
# C_2018002EN.01000201.xml

| 5.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8655 — KKR/LS Mitron/LS Auto)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 2/02)

On 21 December 2017, 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 32017M8655. 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 32017M8655. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION

THE DAILY WIRE, LLC; 

FDRLST MEDIA, LLC; and

THE STATE OF TEXAS, by and through its 

Attorney General, Ken Paxton, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE;

GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT CENTER;

ANTONY BLINKEN, in his official capacity as 

Secretary of State;

LEAH BRAY, in her official capacity as Deputy 

Coordinator of the State Department’s Global 

Engagement Center;

JAMES P. RUBIN, in his official capacity as 

Coordinator for the Global Engagement Center of the 

State Department;

DANIEL KIMMAGE, in his official capacity as the 

Principal Deputy Coordinator for the Global 

Engagement Center at the State Department;

ALEXIS FRISBIE, in her official capacity as Senior 

Technical Advisor of the Technology Engagement 

Team for the Global Engagement Center at the State 

Department;

PATRICIA WATTS, in her official capacity as the 

Director of the Technology Engagement Team at the 

Global Engagement Center at the State Department,

Defendants. 

Civil Action No.: 6:23-cv-00609 

EXHIBIT 5

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 25-5 Filed 03/14/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 737
3/5/24, 1:06 PM Tax Exempt Organization Search Details | Internal Revenue Service

https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/details/ 1/2

Disinformation Index Inc.

EIN: 85-2450338 | San Antonio, Texas, United States

Other Names

DISINFORMATION INDEX INC

Publication 78 Data

Organizations eligible to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions. Users

may rely on this list in determining deductibility of their contributions.

On Publication 78 Data List: Yes

Deductibility Code: PC

Determination Letter

A favorable determination letter is issued by the IRS if an organization meets the

requirements for tax-exempt status under the Code section the organization

applied.

Final Letter(s)

FinalLetter_85-2450338_DISINFORMATIONINDEXINC_08182020_00.tif

[https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/dl/FinalLetter_85-

2450338_DISINFORMATIONINDEXINC_08182020_00.tif]

Copies of Returns (990, 990-EZ, 990-PF, 990-

T)

Electronic copies (images) of Forms 990, 990-EZ, 990-PF or 990-T returns filed

with the IRS by charities and non-profits.

Tax Year 2021 Form 990

available at: https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/details/

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 25-5 Filed 03/14/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 738
3/5/24, 1:06 PM Tax Exempt Organization Search Details | Internal Revenue Service

https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/details/ 2/2

Tax Year 2020 Form 990

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 25-5 Filed 03/14/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 739
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DAVID KING, JR., §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-101

§

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL §

JUSTICE, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND

ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff David King, Jr., an inmate confined at the Wainwright Unit, proceeding pro se,

brought this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requested leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States

Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders

of this court. The magistrate judge recommends denying plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis. 

The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available

evidence. Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. This

requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See

FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). 

The magistrate judge’s recommendation was based on plaintiff’s statements, made under

the penalty of perjury, that he owns a United States bond valued at approximately 

$100,000,000.00 and he receives monthly deposits to his prisoner account in amounts ranging 

between $50.00 and $100.00.

In his objections, plaintiff requests the court to make arrangements for paying the filing

fee with the Secretary of the United States Treasury. Plaintiff is responsible for making

Case 9:23-cv-00101-MAC-CLS Document 9 Filed 02/07/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 87
arrangements for paying the filing fee, not the court. Therefore, after careful consideration of all

the pleadings and the relevant case law, the court concludes that plaintiff’s objections lack merit.

O R D E R

Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is

ADOPTED. It is 

ORDERED that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (#2) is DENIED. 

Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee of $402.00 within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this lawsuit pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

2

Case 9:23-cv-00101-MAC-CLS Document 9 Filed 02/07/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 88
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUG 7, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-16358

Non-Argument Calendar

_______________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00094-CV-6

PAUL MARVIN HOOD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

WARDEN BILLY TOMPKINS, 

COMMISSIONER JAMES E. DONALD, 

Georgia Department of Corrections, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

_________________________

(August 7, 2006)

Before BLACK, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Paul M. Hood, a pro se Georgia prisoner, appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights case without prejudice because Hood

provided false information on the complaint form concerning his prior filing

history. Hood checked “no” in response to a question on the complaint form

asking “[W]hile incarcerated or detained at any facility, have you brought any

lawsuits in federal court which deal with facts other than those involved in this

action?” After a Magistrate Judge entered a report identifying previous federal

cases initiated by Hood that were not disclosed, Hood conceded that his filing

history disclosures were incomplete but the district court still dismissed his case as

a sanction for abuse of the judicial process. Hood appeals, contending that (1) his

right to due process was violated because he was not afforded an evidentiary

hearing to determine whether he lied on the complaint form; (2) the question was

ambiguous and he had no reason to lie on the form, as his prior suits had not been

dismissed for frivolity and (3) the court’s reliance on the Prison Litigation Reform

Act was misplaced.

A district court may impose sanctions if a party knowingly files a pleading

contained false contentions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). We review sanctions imposed

pursuant to Rule 11 for an abuse of discretion. Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d

610, 612 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). 
3

After a review of the record on appeal and consideration of Hood’s brief, we

find no abuse of discretion. Although sanctions imposed under Rule 11 ordinarily

require notice and an opportunity to respond prior to the imposition of sanctions,

Hood was afforded the opportunity to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

report, which he did. The objections were considered, but the district court was

correct to conclude that to allow Hood to then acknowledge what he should have

disclosed earlier would serve to overlook his abuse of the judicial process. 

Secondly, we cannot conclude that the question on the complaint form asking

about prior lawsuits in federal court is ambiguous. Nor do we find that the district

court’s reference to the Prison Litigation Reform Act is improper.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this case without

prejudice.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1245

KAYI GOUDEAGBE,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: October 19, 2017 Decided: November 7, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for 

Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Greg D. Mack, Senior 

Litigation Counsel, Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration 

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kayi Goudeagbe, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review of an order of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen. Goudeagbe’s 

motion was untimely filed, and the Board declined to exercise its sua sponte authority to 

reopen her proceedings.

We lack jurisdiction to review how the Board exercises its sua sponte discretion. 

See Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2016); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 

F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009). We therefore dismiss the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 33802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11911]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4532-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]


Vermont; Amendment No. 9 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Vermont (FEMA-4532-DR), dated April 8, 2020, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on May 17, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Lori A. 
Ehrlich, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating 
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Paul F. Ford as Federal 
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-11911 Filed 6-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alimera Sciences, Inc.;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(s) 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)) and internal control over
financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) 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 relating to the
registrant, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    [paragraph deleted in accordance with SEC release no. 34-47986]c.
    
    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; andd.
    
    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(s) 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):
 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.
 Date: May 9, 2011
    /s/ Richard S. Eiswirth, Jr.Richard S. Eiswirth, Jr.Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 119 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.119
                                     Agreed to November 20, 2014        

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on any legislative day from Thursday, 
November 20, 2014, through Friday, November 28, 2014, on a motion 
offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader 
or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Monday, December 
1, 2014, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of 
this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the 
Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Thursday, November 20, 
2014, through Friday, November 28, 2014, on a motion offered pursuant 
to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, 
it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Monday, December 1, 2014, 
or such other time on that day as may be specified by its Majority 
Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the 
time of any reassembly pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. (a) The Speaker or his designee, after consultation with 
the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify Members of the House to 
reassemble at such place and time as he may designate if, in his 
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
    (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), when the House 
adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection by its 
Majority Leader or his designee, the House shall again stand adjourned 
pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution.
    Sec. 3. (a) The Majority Leader of the Senate or his designee, 
after concurrence with the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify 
the Members of the Senate to reassemble at such place and time as he 
may designate if, in his opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
    (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), when the Senate 
adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection by its 
Majority Leader or his designee, the Senate shall again stand adjourned 
pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```