alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AUTODESK, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DASSAULT SYSTÈMES SOLIDWORKS

CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-04397 WHA

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER

REGARDING CONSENT

JUDGMENT

This order is meant to provide guidance to the parties as to what would be acceptable

language in place of paragraph two of their proposed consent judgment:

The parties stipulate that the letter string “DWG” is a valid

trademark owned by Autodesk for computer-aided design (CAD)

software and related services, as alleged by Autodesk in the FAC. 

Based on that stipulation, the Court will enforce the stipulated

trademark as against defendant without adjudicating the issue on

the merits.

Additionally, in paragraph three, the phrase “except as specified in

paragraph 2” should be deleted.

Dated: January 5, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-04397-WHA Document 247 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Taylor *v.*The State.

November 13, 1912.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge J. B. Park. Baldwin superior court. September- 23, 1912.

*Sibley & Sibley,*for plaintiff in error. *T. S. Felder, attorney-general,*and J, *E, Pottle, solicitor-general,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

1. The evidence in this case did not present any theory of a forcible attack or invasion of the property of another by the person killed, or of any attempt by him in a riotous and tumultuous manner to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein. There was accordingly no error in omitting to charge the law applicable to such a theory.

2. Nor did the evidence present any theory of voluntary manslaughter, so as to require a charge on that subject.

3. Although the presiding judge, in instructing the jury, twice erroneously called the surname of the person alleged to have been killed, mentioning by accident the name of a person who appeared on the indictment as a witness, yet where he referred to the indictment as alleging the name of the person killed, and from the indictment, the evidence, and the entire charge it is plain that the jury could not have been misled as to the person who was charged to have been killed, such lapsus linguse will not require a new trial.

4. Where an indictment for murder alleged that the person killed was named Charlie Bonner, and the evidence showed that such was the ease, the fact that a witness for the State testified that the deceased was a boy and was named after his father, did not furnish ground for ruling out the testimony of such witness as to the killing of the son, because the indictment did not allege that “Charlie Bonner Jr.” was killed.

5. That the name of a witness offered by the State was not indorsed on the indictment, or, if it was so indorsed, that he had not in fact testified before the grand jury, furnished no ground for excluding his testimony,

6. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Letter Agreement - Bob L. Corey



  
 Exhibit 10.1

 [Extreme Networks Letterhead] 
 September 3, 2010 
 Mr. Bob Corey 

Dear Bob, 
 This letter is to confirm certain
additional terms in connection with your position as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Extreme Networks, Inc. (the “Company”). 
 The Compensation Committee has approved the following additional terms to your existing Executive Change in Control Severance Agreement (the “Severance Agreement”): (i) if the Company is
acquired by an entity that does not have stock listed on a U.S. equity exchange, all of your unvested stock options will vest upon the closing of such a transaction, and (ii) “Good Reason” for purposes of the Severance Agreement shall
include if the Company is a party to a merger or acquisition and immediately after the closing of such transaction your duties and responsibilities are materially reduced from serving as the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
the surviving publicly listed corporation. 
 To indicate your acceptance of these additional terms to the Severance Agreement, please sign and
date this letter in the space provided below and return to Michelle Wagner, Director of Human Resources at Extreme Networks, Inc. at 3585 Monroe Street, Santa Clara, CA 95051. A duplicate original is enclosed for your records. 

This agreement cannot be modified or amended except by subsequent written agreement signed by you and the Company; provided, however, that the Company
may, in its sole discretion, elect to modify your title, compensation, duties, or benefits without any further agreement from you. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	 /s/ Charles P. Carinalli

	
	EXTREME NETWORKS INC.
	Charles P. Carinalli
	Lead Director,
	Board of Directors

 I agree to and accept the additional
terms to the Severance Agreement with Extreme Networks, Inc. as set forth in this agreement. 
  

									
	 /s/ Bob Corey
	 		 	 September 3, 2010
	 		 	
	Bob Corey	 		 	Date
#### Jennie Lumb v. Charles E. Lumb.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with ten dollars costs, unless appellant complies with terms stated in order. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT


TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Officer of ERF Wireless, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




August 23, 2010

/s/ Richard R. RoyallRichard R. Royall

Chief Financial Officer
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ABBYY SOFTWARE HOUSE, ET AL., 

Defendants.

AND ALL RELATED CASES.

 /

No. C 08-02912 JSW

ORDER RE PRIOR ART

REFERENCES AND CASE

MANAGEMENT

On July 2, 2010, during the case management conference, this Court entered an order

requiring Defendants to identify no more than 20 prior art references prior to claim

construction. Since the time of that order, the Court has received three letters from the parties

contesting that ruling. The Court has reviewed the parties’ joint case management statement,

heard the oral argument, and reviewed the submitted letters. For the reasons set forth during the

case management conference, the Court maintains the current schedule. The parties must meet

and confer to arrive a mutually-agreeably schedule by no later than July 16, 2010, which shall

include the date for Defendants to provide their best prior art references prior to the Markman

process. To the extent this Court’s claim construction order provides good cause, Defendants

shall be permitted to exchange prior art terms, while presumptively maintaining the same

number of overall terms at issue. 

Case 3:08-cv-04227-JSW Document 194 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

To the extent the parties encounter difficult with determining precise interim dates and

deadlines in the claim construction process, including the deadline for Defendants to submit

their designated prior art references, the Court refers the parties to the Special Master for

assistance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-04227-JSW Document 194 Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 2
### §299b–8. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 111–5, div. A, title VIII, §804, Feb. 17, 2009, 123 Stat. 187, established the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Termination of Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research

Pub. L. 111–148, title VI, §6302, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 747, provided that the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research established under this section terminated on Mar. 23, 2010.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0946 Directorate Identifier: 2012-CE-037-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 2.0 $ 170.00 $0 $ 170.00 3 $ 510.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 510

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Repair 2.0 $ 170.00 $400 $ 570.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2433 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Aspirin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2005 

Mr. MURPHY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Aspirin. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ASPIRIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.05.70 O-Acetylsalicylic acid 

(Apirin)(CAS No.50–78–2) 

(provided for in subheading 

2918.22.10) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 2433 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
# Euroopan unionin L 16I/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0812 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopan unionin
  virallinen lehti | L 016I |
| | |
| Suomenkielinen laitos | Lainsäädäntö | 62. vuosikerta18. tammikuu 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0812

Euroopan unionin

virallinen lehti

L 016I

Suomenkielinen laitos

Lainsäädäntö

62. vuosikerta18. tammikuu 2019

---

| Sisältö | | Oikaisuja | Sivu |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Oikaisu komission täytäntöönpanoasetukseen (EU) 2019/73, annettu 17 päivänä tammikuuta 2019, lopullisen polkumyyntitullin käyttöönotosta Kiinan kansantasavallasta peräisin olevien sähköpolkupyörien tuonnissa ja kyseisessä tuonnissa käyttöönotetun väliaikaisen tullin lopullisesta kantamisesta ( EUVL L 16, 18.1.2019 ) | 1 |

Sisältö

Oikaisuja

Sivu

*

Oikaisu komission täytäntöönpanoasetukseen (EU) 2019/73, annettu 17 päivänä tammikuuta 2019, lopullisen polkumyyntitullin käyttöönotosta Kiinan kansantasavallasta peräisin olevien sähköpolkupyörien tuonnissa ja kyseisessä tuonnissa käyttöönotetun väliaikaisen tullin lopullisesta kantamisesta ( EUVL L 16, 18.1.2019 )

( EUVL L 16, 18.1.2019 )

1

| FI | Säädökset, joiden otsikot on painettu laihalla kirjasintyypillä, ovat maatalouspolitiikan alaan kuuluvia juoksevien asioiden hoitoon liityviä säädöksiä, joiden voimassaoloaika on yleensä rajoitettu.
  Kaikkien muiden säädösten otsikot on painettu lihavalla kirjasintyypillä ja merkitty tähdellä. |
| --- | --- |

FI

Säädökset, joiden otsikot on painettu laihalla kirjasintyypillä, ovat maatalouspolitiikan alaan kuuluvia juoksevien asioiden hoitoon liityviä säädöksiä, joiden voimassaoloaika on yleensä rajoitettu.

Kaikkien muiden säädösten otsikot on painettu lihavalla kirjasintyypillä ja merkitty tähdellä.

---

Oikaisuja

| 18.1.2019 | FI | Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti | LI 16/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2019

FI

Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti

LI 16/1

---

Oikaisu komission täytäntöönpanoasetukseen (EU) 2019/73, annettu 17 päivänä tammikuuta 2019, lopullisen polkumyyntitullin käyttöönotosta Kiinan kansantasavallasta peräisin olevien sähköpolkupyörien tuonnissa ja kyseisessä tuonnissa käyttöönotetun väliaikaisen tullin lopullisesta kantamisesta

(
  Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti L 16, 18. tammikuuta 2019
  )

Sivulla 135, 4 artiklassa:

Ennen:

”Tämä asetus on kaikilta osiltaan velvoittava, ja sitä sovelletaan sellaisenaan kaikissa jäsenvaltioissa.”

Lisätään:

”Tämä asetus tulee voimaan seuraavana päivänä sen jälkeen, kun se on julkaistu Euroopan unionin virallisessa lehdessä.”

---
#### Lynee A. F. Gourdet, Respondent, v Alvin T. Hershfeld et al., Appellants.

[716 NYS2d 714]

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated April 24, 2000, which granted the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, to vacate an order of the same court, dated December 10, 1999, granting the defendants’ respective motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216, upon the plaintiff’s default in opposing the motions.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the plaintiff’s motion is denied, and the order dated December 10, 1999, is reinstated.

In response to a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216, the plaintiff failed to timely file a note of issue. Thereafter, the defendants separately moved to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motions upon the plaintiff’s default iii opposing them. The plaintiff then moved to vacate her default and for leave to file a note of issue. The Supreme Court granted the motion and the defendants appeal.

The Supreme Court improperly granted the plaintiff’s motion. In order to vacate her default, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action *(see,*CPLR 5015 [a]; *Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v Andrews Ave. Equities,*70 NY2d 831; *Martinez v Otis El. Co.,*213 AD2d 523). The plaintiff’s excuse for failing to oppose the defendants’ motions to dismiss can only be classified as law office failure. Although the Supreme Court has the discretion to excuse a default resulting from law office failure *(see,*CPLR 2005; *Rosado v Economy El. Co.,*236 AD2d 598; *Miles v Blue Label Trucking,*232 AD2d 382), the conclusory affirmation of the plaintiff’s counsel was insufficient to establish an excusable default *(see, Eretz Funding v Shalosh Assocs.,*266 AD2d 184; *Van Kleeck v Horton Mem. Hosp.,*251 AD2d 494; *Swedish v Bourie,*233 AD2d 495; *General Elec. Capital Auto Lease v Terzi,*232 AD2d 449).

Additionally, the plaintiff failed to establish that she has a meritorious cause of action. Because this is a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff was required to establish the merits of her action by submitting an expert’s affidavit *(see, Tolliver v County of Nassau,*231 AD2d 708; *Murdock v Center for Special Surgery,*199 AD2d 482, 483). The plaintiff submitted the unsigned affidavit of an unidentified physician in support of her motion. Contrary to her claim, absent the submission of an unredacted physician’s affidavit to the Supreme Court for in camera inspection, she is unable to establish the merits of the *423action (see, *Fuller v Tae Kwon,*259 AD2d 662; see *also, Tolliver v County of Nassau, supra).*Moreover, the affidavit she did submit was conclusory (see, *Nepomniaschi v Goldstein,*182 AD2d 743). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2580

To extend the suspension of duty on Methyl-4-trifluoromethoxyphenyl-N-

(chlorocarbonyl) carbamate (DPX–KL540). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2005

Mr. BONNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To extend the suspension of duty on Methyl-4-

trifluoromethoxyphenyl-N-(chlorocarbonyl) carbamate 

(DPX–KL540).

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. METHYL-4-TRIFLUOROMETHOXYPHENYL-N4 (CHLOROCARBONYL) CARBAMATE (DPX–

5 KL540). 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.29.91 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 Methyl-4-trifluoromethoxyphenyl-N-(chlorocarbonyl) car9 bamate) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2003’’ and insert10 ing ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 
2

•HR 2580 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 4.2

Amendment to Certificate of Designation of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock

                    Amendment to Certificate of Designation
                       After Issuance of Class or Series
                           (PURSUANT TO NRS 78.1955)

Important: Read attached instructions before completing form.
                                              ABOVE SPACE IS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of DesignationFor Nevada Profit
Corporations(Pursuant to NRS 78.1955 - After Issuance of Class or Series)

1.      Name of corporation: ERF WIRELESS, INC.

2.      Stockholder approval pursuant to statute has been obtained.

3.      The class or series of stock being amended:

                SERIES A CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK $.001 PAR VALUE (the
                "Series A")

4.      By a resolution adopted by the board of directors, the certificate of
        designation is being amended as follows or the new class or series is:

The Corporation increases the number of shares of preferred stock designated as
Series A from Two Million Five Hundred Thousand (2,500,000) shares to Five
Million (5,000,000) shares. Any shares of Series A that are either (1) converted
into common stock or (2) redeemed by the Corporation may be reissued as Series
A. All other terms of the Certificate of Designation filed August 27, 2004
remain in effect and are not altered by this amendment. The holder of 100% of
the issued and outstanding shares of the Series A voted in favor of this
Amendment.

5.      Effective date of filing (optional)" ________________________________

6.      Officer Signature (Required): /s/ R/ Greg Smith, President

IMPORTANT: Failure to include any of the above information and submit the proper
fees may cause this filing to be rejected.
Filing Fee: $175.00
#### Cathedral Parkway Associates et al., Respondents, v Richard Donald Consulting Structural Engineer, P. C., et al., Appellants.

[717 NYS2d 131]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), rendered August 24, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff contractor MZA Construction Corporation the total sum of $56,781.88, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly concluded upon the trial testimony that plaintiff MZA had completed construction work for which it was to be paid $45,000 pursuant to the parties’ contract. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court properly credited the testimony of Mr. Zoja, one of plaintiffs’ principals, and discredited the testimony of the individual defendant that the monies entrusted to him were not intended to pay plaintiffs for their work. We see no reason to disturb the trial court’s findings, particularly where, as here, such findings rest in large measure upon its assessment of witness credibility *(see, Ashland Mgt. v Janien,*190 AD2d 591, *affd*82 NY2d 395). Although defendant Richard Donald maintains that there was no basis to impose liability upon him individually, the trial evidence established that the checks provided to Richard Donald pursuant to the parties’ contract were issued to Donald personally rather than the corporate defendant and endorsed by him in a personal capacity. Thus, his personal liability for the entrusted funds was established. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
#### Mary L. Stevenson, as Administratrix de Bonis Non, etc., of James H. Stevenson, Deceased, Respondent, v. New York and Long Branch Railroad Company, Appellant, and Another, Defendant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Thomas, Carr, Mills and Rich, JJ., concurred; Jenks, P. J., not voting.
### §1973gg–4. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1973gg–4 was editorially reclassified as section 20505 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
§ 309.19 Waiver. ( a ) Under certain circumstances, employees may have a statutory right to request a waiver of indebtedness. When an employee makes a request under a statutory right, further collection will be stayed pending an administrative determination on the request.
( b ) Waiver of indebtedness is an equitable remedy and as such must be based on an assessment of the facts involved in the individual case under consideration. The burden is on the employee to demonstrate that the applicable waiver standard has been met.