alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

HIGH 5 GAMES, LLC, 

Appellant

v.

KATHERINE K. VIDAL, Under Secretary of 

Commerce for Intellectual Property and 

Director of the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, 

Intervenor

______________________

2020-1024

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-

00529.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

Case: 20-1024 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 12/21/2022
2 HIGH 5 GAMES, LLC V. VIDAL 

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

December 21, 2022

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: December 21, 2022

Case: 20-1024 Document: 52 Page: 2 Filed: 12/21/2022
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Isramco, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Edy Francis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Company's Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





December 18, 2013





/s/ EDY FRANCIS


EDY FRANCIS


CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


(PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER)








A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO REGISTRANT AND WILL BE RETAINED BY REGISTRANT AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02381-PAB-KLM

SALVADOR MAGLUTA,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

AMBER NELSON, Acting Regional Director of the North Central Region, 

CHARLES DANIELS, Warden at USP Florence,

MONICA S. WETZEL, Former Warden at FDC Miami, 

LOUIS MILUSNIC, Assistant Warden at USP Florence,

JOHNSON (FNU), Assistant Warden at USP Florence,

G.T. KAPUSTA, Former Assistant Warden at FDC Miami, 

BANUELOS (FNU), Lieutenant at USP Florence,

T. JAVERNICK, Case Manager Coordinator (CMC) at Florence Federal Complex, 

ANDY FENLON, Counselor at ADX Florence,

MASSEY (FNU), Officer at USP Florence,

DUVAL (FNU), Officer at USP Florence,

STEGAL (FNU), Officer at USP Florence,

DEFENDANTS JOHN DOES 1-9, to be identified later,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer

This matter is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Stay Case [Docket No.

103] filed by plaintiff and defendants. The parties request a sixty day stay in order to

allow the Bureau of Prisons and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to complete an

investigation regarding contraband found in plaintiff’s cell. The parties also ask that the

Court vacate the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction set for Monday, April

15, 2013 and the Scheduling Conference set for Wednesday, April 24, 2013. In light of

the ongoing investigation and good cause appearing, it is

ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Stay Case for 60 Days and to Vacate the

April 15th Hearing and the April 24th Scheduling Conference [Docket No. 103] is

GRANTED. It is further

Case 1:11-cv-02381-PAB-KLM Document 104 Filed 04/10/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

ORDERED that the hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and

Temporary Restraining Order [Docket No. 101] set for April 15, 2013 and the

Scheduling Conference set for April 24, 2013 are VACATED. It is further

ORDERED that this case shall be stayed until June 10, 2013. It is further

ORDERED that the parties shall contact the magistrate judge to reschedule the

Scheduling Conference. 

DATED April 10, 2013.

Case 1:11-cv-02381-PAB-KLM Document 104 Filed 04/10/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6892

JAMES WALLACE FOX,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BRICK TRIPP; US PAROLE COMMISSION,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:16-hc-02127-FL)

Submitted: November 28, 2017 Decided: January 5, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wallace Fox, Appellant Pro Se. Roberto Francisco Ramirez, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Wallace Fox, a District of Columbia Code offender, seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Wilson v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 652 F.3d 348, 351-52 (3d 

Cir. 2011); Madley v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court 

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 

is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fox has not made the 

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
DeutscheBank EZ]

flobinso.r Boad PO. Box 3941

dilOFcgroffi.g i.n lumber: tm- g500426-8

PUmS TRANSFER CRED工 T ADVICE

OUR RE「 NIJDER : 45RS200804240080

SENDERS REF :

CHARCSS :

nN● L工NC FEE

mNDL工 NG FEE イ

COMM 工NL工

`0

24-APR-2008

WB HAVE RBCE工 VED FUNDS

CURRENCY : uSD

VALOE EL■TE : 24-APR-2008

WIIIEAT RIDG口 , CO

DETA工 LS OF PAYplENT :

BENEF REF : S3■ 3734工 CP042300

AS DETATLED BELOW ―

AMO― :

EX RATB :

工NV RATE :

500,000_OO

■_0000000000

■_0000000000

OR工G工NATOR : ORIG工 NATINC BANK:

IINIVBRSAL CONSULTINC RES00RCgs, TTC BANK OF AMER工 CA/Nl・X

3250 BEVroN sT APT ■07

802■2-7065

_000

COM140NICAT工 ON EXPENSE

D

D

D

D

C

G

C

C

S

・S

S

S

КCT,選

。殿 川。呻 :。sD

ARCANOM EOu工 TY FUND LLC

■3■ ■6 mRR工 ERS PLACE

BRADENTON′ FL 342■ 2

0SA N― DA

500′ 000 00 CR

noL signed by the bank

ONITED STATES OF

誇 GOVERNMENT

亀 EXHIBIT

奎 9

さ

CoDfj-rmations are

NSOWERS 002327

Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 78-9 filed 10/24/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of

1
178 La. 419

#### VINOY PARK HOTEL CO. v. FUMIGATION SERVICE, Inc.

No. 32331.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 27, 1933.

Alvin R. Ohristovieh, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Cobb & Jones, of New Orleans, for appel-lee.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

This is a suspensive appeal from a judgment rendered against the defendant, "appellant, for $10,000, with legal interest from judicial demand. The surety on the appeal bond for $16,000 is Lloyds Insurance Company of America. The plaintiff has' filed a motion to have the case remanded to the civil district court to test the solvency of the surety on the appeal bond, because Lloyds Insurance Company of America has been taken over by the superintendent of insurance of the state of New York and a receiver for the company has been appointed in Louisiana since this appeal was taken.

When an appellee moves to have the appeal dismissed, or to have the case remanded to test the solvency of the surety on the appeal bond, on the ground-that the surety has ¡become insolvent since the appeal was taken, and furnishes prima facie proof of the alleged insolvency, the case must be remanded to the court that rendered the judgment, to test the solvency of the surety, and to afford the appellant an opportunity to furnish a new bond if the surety has become insolvent since the bond was given. Gray, MacMurdo & Co. v. Lowe & Pattison et al., 9 La. Ann. 478; Irish Levy Electric Co. v. Moss, 176 La. 882, 147 So. 22; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Dampskibs Aktieselskabet, 176 La. 895, 147 So. 26; Harnischfeger Sales Corporation v. Sternberg Co., 177 La. 373, 148 So. 440.

This case is ordered remanded to the civil district court, division D, to test the solvency of the surety on the appeal bond and to afford the appellant an opportunity to prevent a dismissal of the appeal, by furnishing a new bond, with good and solvent surety, within a reasonable time to be fixed by the judge, if the surety on the bond heretofore given has become insolvent, or is in liquidation, or in the hands of a receiver.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02370-CMA-KMT

K-BEECH, INC.

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.

ORDER REASSIGNING MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court sua sponte. In light of transfer of related cases to

the undersigned, which was approved by Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Order of Reference to United States Magistrate Judge filed in

this action on September 14, 2011 (Doc. # 5) is hereby modified to reassign this

case from Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya to Magistrate Judge Michael J.

Watanabe. All further filing in this action shall be docketed under Civil Action No. 11-

cv-02370-CMA-MJW.

DATED: September 22 , 2011

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge
#### Paul S. Mayo, Respondent, v Lynn Grotthenthaler, Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 801]

Cardona, P.J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Mulvey, J.), entered April 6, 2005 in Chemung County, which held defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and/or for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in abeyance pending further discovery.

In his capacity as a Labor Relations Specialist with New York State United Teachers, plaintiff represented the Elmira Teachers’ Association in a variety of labor matters, including negotiations with the Elmira City School District. In March 2003, the Association resolved to have plaintiff removed as its representative on the ground that he had become an ineffective advocate due, at least in part, to his personal relationships with District officials. As a result, plaintiff was replaced as the Association’s Labor Relations Specialist and retired shortly thereafter.

Plaintiff commenced this defamation action against, among others, defendant, a member of the Association.* The complaint alleged that defendant publicly stated on various occasions that plaintiff was involved in a sexual relationship with the Superintendent of the District. Following some discovery, defendant moved for dismissal of the complaint on various grounds pursuant to CPLR 3211 and/or 3212. Finding that depositions of certain nonparties might provide information relevant to the prosecution of plaintiffs action, Supreme Court declined to rule on the motion, holding it in abeyance pending completion of that discovery *(see*CPLR 3211 [d]; 3212 [f]). Defendant appeals and we affirm.

*999CPLR 3211 (d) and 3212 (f) each permit a court to hold an accelerated judgment motion in abeyance pending further discovery *(see Green v Covington,*299 AD2d 636, 637 [2002]; *Scofield v Trustees of Union Coll. in Town of Schenectady,*267 AD2d 651, 652 [1999]; *Herzog v Town of Thompson,*216 AD2d 801, 803-804 [1995]; *see also*Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3211:49, C3212.-33). Mindful that the decision to grant further disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3211 (d) or 3212 (f) is largely a matter left to the broad discretion of the trial court *(see Svoboda v Our Lady of Lourdes Mem. Hosp., Inc.,*20 AD3d 805, 806 [2005]; *Herzog v Town of Thompson, supra*at 803), and in light of the fact that the requested depositions may reveal information which give rise to questions of fact concerning certain of the defenses raised in defendant’s motion, we cannot conclude that Supreme Court erred in holding the motion in abeyance pending further discovery.

Mercure, Crew III and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*

 The complaint originally listed a second Association member as a defendant, but the action was discontinued as to him during the pendency of this appeal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      6,234
<SECURITIES>                                1,074
<RECEIVABLES>                              30,141
<ALLOWANCES>                                1,644
<INVENTORY>                                35,123
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           80,913
<PP&E>                                     91,658
<DEPRECIATION>                             37,817
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            169,118
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      19,652
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                      132
<OTHER-SE>                                 98,769
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              169,118
<SALES>                                   153,779
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          153,779
<CGS>                                      67,901
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              79,169
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            3,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          4,199
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (2,073)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         2,071
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                2,071
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 .16


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02376-LTB-MJW

FELISA R. WEATHERALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION,

Defendant.

________________________________________________________________________

ORDER 

________________________________________________________________________

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the Joint Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc 34 - filed July 12, 2012), and the Court being fully

advised in the premises, it is therefore

ORDERED that this matter shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each party to

pay their own fees and costs. 

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

Lewis T. Babcock, Judge

DATED: July 13, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02376-LTB-MJW Document 35 Filed 07/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58603-58604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23718]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0038]


Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of 
Meeting; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration is correcting a notice that 
appeared in the Federal Register of September 24, 2008 (73 FR 55114). 
The document announced a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory 
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A portion of the 
meeting will be closed to the public. This document corrects the error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theresa Green, Office of the 
Commissioner, Food and Drug

[[Page 58604]]

Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1220.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. E8-22437, appearing on page 55114 
in the Federal Register of Wednesday, September 24, 2008, the following 
correction is made:
    1. On page 55114, in the third column, in the Procedure section, 
the fourth sentence is corrected to read ``Oral presentations from the 
public will be scheduled between approximately 2 p.m. and 3 p.m.''
    There are no other changes to the document.

    Dated: October 1, 2008.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-23718 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
The Courtof Appeals ofthe DIVISION I 

### richardd.johnson, State ofWashington °TUnio" sr^ CourtAdministrator/Clerk \0nttl0 600University Street oeaiue 98101-4170 (206) 464-7750 TDD: (206)587-5505 October 6, 2014 Brian S Sommer Steven K Linkon 13555 SE 36th St Ste 300 13555 SE 36th St Ste 300 Bellevue, WA, 98006-1489 Bellevue, WA, 98006-1489 bsommer@rcolegal.com slinkon@rcolegal.com Michael Gene Fulbright 11820 Northup Way Ste E200 Bellevue, WA, 98005-1966 mike@fulbrightlegal.com CASE #: 70646-2-I Bank of America, Appellant v. Nottingham Properties I. Respondent King County, Cause No. 11-2-35753-8.KNT Counsel: 

### Enclosed is a copy ofthe opinion filed in the above-referenced appeal which states in part: "Reversed and Remanded for further proceedings." 

### Counsel may file a motion for reconsideration within 20 days offiling this opinion pursuant to RAP 

### 12.4(b). Ifcounsel does notwish to file amotion for reconsideration but does wish to seek review by the Supreme Court, RAP 13.4(a) provides that ifno motion for reconsideration is made, apetition for review must befiled in this court within 30days. TheSupreme Court has determined that a filing fee of $200 is required. 

### In accordance with RAP 14.4(a), a claim for costs by the prevailing party must be supported by a cost bill filed andserved within ten daysafterthefiling ofthis opinion, orclaim for costswill bedeemed waived. 

### Should counsel desire theopinion to bepublished by the Reporter ofDecisions, a motion topublish should be served andfiled within 20 days ofthe date offiling theopinion, as provided by RAP 12.3 (e). Sincerely,

Richard D. Johnson Court Administrator/Clerk jh Enclosure
c: The Honorable Elizabeth J. Bernsv.O ; IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., successor by merger to BAC HOME LOAN SERVICING, LP, formerly known as COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, Appellants,

v. NOTTINGHAM PROPERTIES I, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, Respondent. PER CURIAM - This appeal was stayed pending the Washington State Supreme Court's decision in BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Fulbriqht, 180 Wn.2d 754, 328 P.3d 895 (2014). We have lifted the stay and the have parties filed a "Stipulated Motion on the Meritsto Reverse TrialCourt Judgment and Mandate to Superior Court." Although this court suspended the motion on the 

### merits procedure by a general order dated August 18, 2014, the stipulated reversal is equivalent to a concession of error and will be treated as such. We 

### accept the concession of error and reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with the decision in BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Fulbriqht. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. For the court:

en

i

a No. 70646-2-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION



### FILED: OCT 6 20f4
Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Conseco, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eugene M. Bullis,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Eugene M. Bullis
----------------------------
Eugene M. Bullis
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
April 14, 2003

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Conseco, Inc. and will be retained by Conseco, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02434-WYD-MEH 

CARL GENBERG, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STEVEN S. PORTER, 

Defendant. 

MINUTE ORDER 

ORDER ENTERED BY CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL 

 Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion For Leave to Filed Amended Response to Motions to 

Dismiss [ECF No. 65], filed March 7, 2012, is GRANTED. Accordingly, the previously 

stricken Response [ECF No. 59] is now accepted for filing as Plaintiff’s Amended 

Response. 

Dated: March 14, 2012 

Case 1:11-cv-02434-WYD-MEH Document 67 Filed 03/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1