alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW   Document 203-1   Filed 03/14/14   Page 1 of 10 PageID: 5624

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW   Document 203-1   Filed 03/14/14   Page 2 of 10 PageID: 5625

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW   Document 203-1   Filed 03/14/14   Page 3 of 10 PageID: 5626

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW   Document 203-1   Filed 03/14/14   Page 4 of 10 PageID: 5627

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW   Document 203-1   Filed 03/14/14   Page 5 of 10 PageID: 5628

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW   Document 203-1   Filed 03/14/14   Page 6 of 10 PageID: 5629

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW   Document 203-1   Filed 03/14/14   Page 7 of 10 PageID: 5630

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW   Document 203-1   Filed 03/14/14   Page 8 of 10 PageID: 5631

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW   Document 203-1   Filed 03/14/14   Page 9 of 10 PageID: 5632

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW   Document 203-1   Filed 03/14/14   Page 10 of 10 PageID: 5633

- Brief iso Motion to Enforce
Case 3:11-cr-00062-MLC Document 2 Filed 02/03/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 5
Order filed April 19, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00952

- CV

____________ GIOVANNY LAGUAN , Appellant

V.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MOR TGAGE ASSOCIATION A/ K/A FANNIE MAE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 1

Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15

- CCV

- 055845



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due March 28, 2016

. No brief or motion for extension
of time has been filed.
Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before May 19, 2016 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00429-CR

EX PARTE TONYA COUCH §

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District 

Court No. 2

of Tarrant County (C009522-

1439883-1457264)

January 17, 2019

Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

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 as moot.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Elizabeth Kerr 

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. 1

Case No. C 10-780 JF

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 5/6/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BRIAN P. FROELICH,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SEQUOIA LEISURE HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 10-780 JF 

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 1

MOTION TO FOR WITHDRAWAL

OF REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to withdraw the reference of the instant adversary

proceeding is GRANTED. A Case Management Conference is set for May 28, 2010 at 10:30

a.m.

Dated: 5/6/2010

__________________________________ 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-04018-MLC-DEA Document 3 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 67
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4099

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GARY LEE MARCUM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, 

District Judge. (2:08-cr-00247-1)

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael D. Payne, REDMAN AND PAYNE, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, Charleston, 

West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin, II, United States 

Attorney, C. Haley Bunn, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary Lee Marcum appeals the district court’s judgment 

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 12 months’ 

imprisonment. On appeal, Marcum challenges both the revocation of 

his supervised release and the reasonableness of his sentence. We 

affirm.

We review the court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s 

supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. 

Padgett, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2015 WL 3561289, at *1 (4th Cir. June 

9, 2015). Marcum contends that the district court erred by 

revoking his supervised release and imposing an active term of 

imprisonment instead of ordering him to attend a drug treatment 

program. We conclude that the court acted well within its 

discretion when it revoked Marcum’s supervised release. In 

addition to testing positive for drugs on nine occasions, Marcum 

squandered the opportunity the court afforded him when it placed 

the revocation petition in abeyance so that he could complete a 

drug treatment program. The court was not obligated to give Marcum 

a second chance. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) (2012) (mandating only 

that court consider drug treatment alternative to revocation when 

defendant tests positive for controlled substances). 

Marcum next contends that, when imposing sentence, the 

district court erred by considering that he might have been driving 

under the influence during his term of supervised release. While 
3

Marcum is correct that he was not charged with driving under the 

influence, the court’s concern was not unreasonable, as Marcum was 

charged with multiple traffic infractions around the time that he 

tested positive for drugs. Because Marcum has failed to 

demonstrate that his revocation sentence is unreasonable, much 

less plainly so, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See

United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013) (“We will 

affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum 

and is not plainly unreasonable.” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)). 

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.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32529-32530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15989]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Limits on Application of Take Prohibitions.
    OMB Control Number: 0648-0399.
    Form Number(s): None.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Number of Respondents: 301.
    Average Hours per Response: Research and other applications, and 
reports of aiding/rescuing salmon, 5 hours; annual reports, 2 hours.
    Burden Hours: 1,705.
    Needs and Uses: In accordance with Section 4(d) of the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA) promulgates regulations that would prohibit ``take'' (e.g., 
harassment or harm) of threatened salmonids. These regulations identify 
conservation-oriented programs or circumstances in which the ESA's take 
prohibitions would not apply. States, local governments, and other 
entities may submit information to demonstrate that a program qualifies 
to be within those specified programs or circumstances (and therefore 
would not be subject to the prohibitions).
    Affected Public: State, local and tribal government; business and 
other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: Annually and on occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.

[[Page 32530]]

    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 7845, 14th Street 
and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ee8aa697808b85ae8a818dc0898198"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3d5975445358567d59525e135a524b">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-7285, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dc98bdaab5b8838eb3afa8b7b9ae9cb3b1bef2b9b3acf2bbb3aa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b4f6a7d626f545964787f606e794b646669256e647b256c647d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: July 1, 2009.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-15989 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case 2:11-cv-01145-DMC-JAD Document 9 Filed 03/09/11 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 763
Case 2:11-cv-01145-DMC-JAD Document 9 Filed 03/09/11 Page 2 of 14 PageID: 764
Case 2:11-cv-01145-DMC-JAD Document 9 Filed 03/09/11 Page 3 of 14 PageID: 765
Case 2:11-cv-01145-DMC-JAD Document 9 Filed 03/09/11 Page 4 of 14 PageID: 766
Case 2:11-cv-01145-DMC-JAD Document 9 Filed 03/09/11 Page 5 of 14 PageID: 767
Case 2:11-cv-01145-DMC-JAD Document 9 Filed 03/09/11 Page 6 of 14 PageID: 768
Case 2:11-cv-01145-DMC-JAD Document 9 Filed 03/09/11 Page 7 of 14 PageID: 769
Case 2:11-cv-01145-DMC-JAD Document 9 Filed 03/09/11 Page 8 of 14 PageID: 770
Case 2:11-cv-01145-DMC-JAD Document 9 Filed 03/09/11 Page 9 of 14 PageID: 771
Case 2:11-cv-01145-DMC-JAD Document 9 Filed 03/09/11 Page 10 of 14 PageID: 772
Case 2:11-cv-01145-DMC-JAD Document 9 Filed 03/09/11 Page 11 of 14 PageID: 773
Case 2:11-cv-01145-DMC-JAD Document 9 Filed 03/09/11 Page 12 of 14 PageID: 774
Case 2:11-cv-01145-DMC-JAD Document 9 Filed 03/09/11 Page 13 of 14 PageID: 775
Case 2:11-cv-01145-DMC-JAD Document 9 Filed 03/09/11 Page 14 of 14 PageID: 776
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                      ----------



                        CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906

     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), the
undersigned officer of National Datacomputer, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

     The Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2005 of the Company fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.


Date:    May 15, 2006

By:      /s/  William B. Berens
         -------------------------------------
         William B. Berens
         President and Chief Executive Officer


Date:    May 15, 2006

By:      /s/  Bruna A. Bucacci
         -------------------------------------
         Bruna A. Bucacci
         Chief Accounting Officer (principal financial
         and accounting officer)
Case 2:11-cr-00134-CCC Document 13 Filed 03/03/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 20
Case 2:11-cr-00134-CCC Document 13 Filed 03/03/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 21
Case 2:11-cr-00134-CCC Document 13 Filed 03/03/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 22
Case 2:11-cr-00134-CCC Document 13 Filed 03/03/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 23
Case 2:11-cr-00134-CCC Document 13 Filed 03/03/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 24
Case 2:11-cr-00134-CCC Document 13 Filed 03/03/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 25
Case 2:11-cr-00134-CCC Document 13 Filed 03/03/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 26
Case 2:11-cr-00134-CCC Document 13 Filed 03/03/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 27
#### ANDRIST v. KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RY. CO.

No. 6131.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

March 20, 1950.

*59Alfred H. Osborne, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Horace F. Blackwell, Jr., Lathrop, Crane, Sawyer, Woodson & Righter, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

The defendant has filed its motion for a more definite statement as authorized by paragraph (e) of Rule 12, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. This rule provides that: “If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted *is so vague or ambiguous*(Emphasis mine) that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, he may move for a more definite statement before interposing his responsive pleading.” By its motion the defendant seeks information as to “exactly in what manner and by whom the box or parcel was caused or permitted to fall”, as to “the exact location of the box or parcel before its alleged fall, its path of fall, location after the fall, and what employees of defendant, either by name or by class, other than plaintiff had exclusive control and management of said box or parcel.”

1. It will be observed from the foregoing that the defendant does not seek a more definite statement because the averments are vague or ambiguous, but the defendant seeks information by its motion which is in the nature of a motion for a bill of particulars. The motion for a bill of particulars has been deleted from the Rules. This was done for the reason that such rule impinged upon Rule 8 which enjoined conciseness in pleadings rather than verbose pleadings.

2. The motion for a more definite statement has been much discussed in the cases. And long before the promulgation of our new rules it was held in all the opinions, as well as stated in the texts, that it “will not lie where the allegations of the pleading against which it is directed are adjudged sufficiently definite, certain, or specific to inform the opposing party of the *nature of the cause of action or de*fense(Emphasis mine.) 49 C.J. par. 6, Section 1036, p. 737.

The meaning of the rule was ably discussed by the late Judge J. T. Blair in Walsh v. Pulitzer Publishing Co., Mo.Sup., 183 S.W. 587, loc. cit. 588, 589.

The several discovery rules are designed to afford a litigant information sought in this way.

3. Our local rules require that counsel, in filing the motions, always support same with the citation of authorities. This was not done in the instant case.

The motion for a more definite statement should be and will be overruled.
**Exhibit No. 32.1**

Form 10-Q

Marketing Acquisition Corporation

File No. 0-52072

**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 Quarterly Report of Marketing Acquisition Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy P. Halter, Chief Executive and 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 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. |   |   |

 

| Date: July 23, 2009 |   |  By: |  /s/ Timothy P. Halter |   |   |
|---------------------|--------|-----------|-----------------------------|--------|--------|
|                     |   |      | Timothy P. Halter           |   |   |
|                     |   |      | Chief Executive             |   |   |
|                     |   |      | and Chief Financial Officer |   |   |

----

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Marketing Acquisition Corporation and will be retained        by Marketing Acquisition Corporation  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

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

SHAWN R. SELIBER, 

 CIVIL NO. 11-0362WJM

 Plaintiff,

 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

ULRIKE MUSCHAWECK, 

 

 Defendant.

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

The Plaintiff having failed to respond to the 

Court’s Notice of call for dismissal,

It is on this 7 day of July 2011 th

ORDERED that the above captioned action is dismissed in 

accordance with F.R.Civ.P. 41 and New Jersey Local Rule 41.1 and 

the inherent authority of this Court to manage its docket.

s/William J. Martini

 ______________________________

 WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-cv-00362-WJM-MF Document 5 Filed 07/07/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 15
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ___________ 

No. 24-10248

___________ 

Chamber of Commerce for the United States of 

America, Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce; Longview 

Chamber of Commerce; American Bankers Association; 

Consumer Bankers Association; Texas Association of 

Business,

 

Plaintiffs—Appellants, 

Versus

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Rohit Chopra, 

in his official capacity as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:24-CV-213

______________________________

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:

IT IS ORDERED that the District Court’s transfer order is 

administratively stayed until 5:00 PM on Tuesday, April 2, 2024. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 30, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-10248 Document: 62-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2024
No. 24-10248

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this appeal and all pending 

motions are expedited to the next oral argument panel.

Case: 24-10248 Document: 62-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2024
### Attachment not available electronically.* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally di sfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 2 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 6/5/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 95-6384 ) (D.C. No. CIV-95-375-C) COLETTE JOE BERNAUGH, ) (W.D. Oklahoma) ) Defendant-Appellant. )

__________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

_________________________ Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

__________________________ After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Mr. Bernaugh, who is represented by counsel, appeals the denial of his federal habeas petition. We exercise jurisdiction and affirm.3

Mr. Bernaugh entered guilty pleas to three drug violations and was sentenced to 122 months. Mr. Bernaugh filed his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claimingthese convictions were barred by his constitutional protection against double jeopardy and because he r eceived ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court carefully analyzed Mr. Bernaugh’s petition and concluded jeopardy did not attach. The trial court further concluded Mr. Bernaug h’s counsel was not ineffective. The trial court, in a concise, well written, and thorough Order correctly analyzed Mr. Bernaugh’s claims. A copy of this Order is attached. Mr. Bernaugh appeals this judgment asserting the trial court erred by deciding this matter without an evidentiary hearing and, by implication, asserted the trial court’s conclusions of law were incorrect. No evidentiary hearing was necessary. The record on appeal clearly shows Mr. Bernaugh never contested the administrative forfeiture proceeding involving proper ty seized at the time of his arrest. He was never a party to this proceeding and therefore w as never punished. See United States v. German , 76 F.3d 315 (10th Cir. 1996). It is equally clear Mr. Bernaugh was not denied effective as sistance of counsel by virtue of the alleged failure of his counsel to contest the forfeiture proceedings as the law which could allegedly support his position was not decided until several years after the forfeiture proceeding was4

concluded. See Austin v. United States , 509 U.S. 602 (1993). The decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED for substantially the same reasons set forth in the Order of the District Court attached hereto. Entered for the Court: WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge