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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

VERITAS OPERATING CORPORATION, a

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington

corporation,

Defendant.

________________________________________

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington

corporation,

Counterclaim Plaintiff,

v.

VERITAS OPERATING CORPORATION, a

Delaware corporation, and VERITAS

SOFTWARE CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation,

 Counterclaim Defendants.

 CASE NO. C06-0703-JCC

ORDER

 

 

 

This matter comes before the Court for review of the Special Master’s Report and

Recommendation on Microsoft Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Veritas’ Claim of

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,469,573 (Dkt. No. 396). The Court has reviewed de novo the Special

Master’s Report and Recommendation (“‘573 Infringement R&R”), the parties’ respective objections and

Case 2:06-cv-00703-JCC Document 413 Filed 02/20/08 Page 1 of 2
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 ORDER – 2

responses thereto (Dkt. Nos. 403, 409), the briefing and exhibits presented to the Special Master in the

first instance, and all other relevant documents in the case file. The Court has determined that oral

argument is not necessary. 

The Court hereby APPROVES and ADOPTS the Special Master’s ‘573 Infringement R&R in its

entirety. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Microsoft’s Motion for Summary Judgment on

Veritas’ Claim of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,469,573 (Dkt. No. 204).

SO ORDERED this 20th day of February, 2008.

AJohn C. Coughenour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00703-JCC Document 413 Filed 02/20/08 Page 2 of 2
No. 59307.

protests 187107-K and 187963-K (New York).

#### Dodge & Olcott, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of camphor oil the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Orbis Products Corp.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 244, C. D. 1527), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Ex Parte Ricardo

Deleon Appellant/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 25, 2014

No. 04-14-00127-CV

EX PARTE Ricardo DELEON

Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

On February 21, 2014, relator filed an original pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The court has considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the

relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

52.8(a). The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on February 25th, 2014.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 25 th day of February, 2014

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2003EM504909, styled In the Interest of R.D. IV, et al., Children

, pending

in the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jim Rausch presiding.
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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN MENERA-RAMIREZ,

 Defendant.

Case No. 06-5019M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( X ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( X ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( X ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 February 9, 2006.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-mj-05019-GHK Document 6 Filed 02/09/06 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 110 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

  1st Session
S. RES. 110

  To permit an individual with a disability with access to the Senate 
         floor to bring necessary supporting aids and services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 30, 1997

Mr. Wyden (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
     Chafee, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Murray, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
    Murkowski, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Harkin) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                      on Rules and Administration

                             July 31, 1997

  Reported by Mr. Warner, without amemdment; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To permit an individual with a disability with access to the Senate 
         floor to bring necessary supporting aids and services.

    Resolved, That an individual with a disability who has or is 
granted the privilege of the Senate floor under rule XXIII of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate may bring necessary supporting aids and 
services (including service dogs, wheelchairs, and interpreters) on the 
Senate floor, unless the Senate Sergeant at Arms determines that the 
use of such supporting aids and services would place a significant 
difficulty or expense on the operations of the Senate in accordance 
with paragraph 2 of rule 4 of the Rules for Regulation of the Senate 
Wing of the United States Capitol.
                                 <all>
```
H. Res. 836 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 5, 2007. 

Resolved, 

SECTION 1. GRANTING INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY TO COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR. 

The Committee on Education and Labor is granted the 

authority provided under clause 4(c)(3) of rule X of the Rules 

of the House of Representatives in furtherance of the investigation by such Committee into the deaths of 9 individuals 

that occurred during August 2007 at the Crandall Canyon 

Mine (also known as the Genwal Mine) near Huntington, 

Utah, including the events that may have led to those deaths 

and into the administration of relevant laws by government 

agencies, including the Department of Labor and the Mine 

Safety and Health Administration, and into other related 

matters. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 5, 2017

No. 04-16-00756-CR

In re Hisidoro D. RAMON, JR.,

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B15-33

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Relator's motion for extension of time to file motion for rehearing is hereby GRANTED. 

Time is extended to January 20, 2017.

It is so ORDERED on January 5, 2017.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _______________________________

 Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
Exhibit 10.7
 GREENVILLE FEDERAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION
AMENDED AND RESTATED
2006 EQUITY PLAN
 1.00 PURPOSE AND EFFECTIVE DATE
 1.01 Purpose.
 1.02 Effective Date. ,
 2.00 DEFINITIONS
  Act.
 Award.
 Award Agreement.
 Beneficiary.
 Board.




---



##### 



Cause.
  Change in Control.
    -2-




---



##### 



Change in Control Price.
 Code.
 Committee.
 Company.
 Covered Officer.
 Director.
 Disability.
    -3-




---



##### 



Employee.
 Exercise Price.
 Fair Market Value.
      Grant Date.
 Incentive Stock Option.
 Nonqualified Stock Option.
 Option.
 Participant.
 -4-




---



##### 



Plan.
 Plan Share Reserve.
 Plan Year.
 Related Board.
 Related Entity.
 Retention Shares.
 Retirement.
 Savings Bank.
 Stock.
 Termination.
     Trust.
 Trustees.
 -5-




---



##### 



3.00 PARTICIPATION
 3.01 Awards to Employees.
   3.02 Awards to Directors.
   3.03 Conditions of Participation.
   4.00 ADMINISTRATION
 4.01 Duties.
 -6-




---



##### 



4.02 Delegation of Duties.
 4.03 Award Agreement.
   4.04 Restriction on Repricing.
 5.00 LIMITS ON STOCK SUBJECT TO AWARDS
 5.01 Number of Authorized Shares of the Stock.
      -7-




---



##### 



5.02 Share Accounting.
      5.03 Adjustment in Capitalization.
 -8-




---



##### 



5.04 Limits on Awards to Participants.
       5.05 Limits on Awards to Covered Officers.
 6.00 OPTIONS
 6.01 Grant of Options.
 6.02 Exercise Price.
 -9-




---



##### 



6.03 Exercise of Options.
     6.04 Incentive Stock Options.
    6.05 Exercise Procedures and Payment for Options.
 -10-




---



##### 



6.06 Substitution of Options.
 6.07 Rights Associated With Options.
   7.00 RETENTION SHARES; CONTRIBUTIONS TO PLAN SHARE RESERVE;
DISTRIBUTION OF RETENTION SHARES
 7.01 Establishment of Trust.
 7.02 Amount and Timing of Contributions.
 7.03 Investment of Trust Assets.
 -11-




---



##### 



7.04 Effect of Grants, Returns and Forfeitures Upon Plan Share Reserves.
 7.05 Grant of Retention Shares.
 7.06 Earning Retention Shares.
 7.07 Timing of Distributions.
 7.08 Form of Distributions.
 7.09 Regulatory Exceptions.
 7.10 Voting of Retention Shares.
 -12-




---



##### 



7.11 Termination of the Trust.
 8.00 TERMINATION
 8.01 Death or Disability.
    8.02 Termination for Cause.
 8.03 Termination for any Other Reason.
 -13-




---



##### 



8.04 Other Events.
 9.00 CHANGE IN CONTROL
 9.01 Accelerated Vesting and Settlement.
    9.02 Effect of Code §280G.
 -14-




---



##### 



10.00 AMENDMENT, MODIFICATION AND TERMINATION OF PLAN
  11.00 MISCELLANEOUS
 11.01 Assignability.
 11.02 Beneficiary Designation.
 11.03 No Guarantee of Continuing Services.
 -15-




---



##### 



11.04 Tax Withholding.
       11.05 Indemnification.
 -16-




---



##### 



11.06 No Limitation on Compensation.
 11.07 Requirements of Law.
 11.08 Governing Law.
 11.09 No Impact on Benefits.
 11.10 Code §409A.
 -17-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DIGITRAN SYSTEMS,
INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES OCTOBER 31, 1997 FINANCIAL STATMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                          12,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  388,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    41,000
<INVENTORY>                                    264,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,018,000
<PP&E>                                       1,377,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 586,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,959,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,823,000
<BONDS>                                        749,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,000
<COMMON>                                       119,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,735,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,959,000
<SALES>                                      1,635,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,635,000
<CGS>                                          928,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,674,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               393,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (482,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (482,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (482,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
Case 3:06-cr-05243-FDB Document 29 Filed 06/28/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cr-05243-FDB Document 29 Filed 06/28/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Mohammad Reza KHALIGH; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-72879.

Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 19, 2005.

John C. Varga, Law Offices of Mike S. Manesh, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Laguna Niguel, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Christopher C. Fuller, Janice K. Redfern, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

On February 28, 2005, the Board of Immigration Appeals granted petitioners’ motion to reopen and remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings. Consequently, as there is no final order of removal against petitioners, we vacate the Memorandum Disposition issued on August 19, 2004 and we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. *See Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft,*298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir.2002) (the court of appeals only has jurisdiction to review final orders of removal). The petition for rehearing and all pending motions are denied as moot.
#### Pedro Berver MERAZ; Maria Jesus Bravo De Berver, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-71980.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

Walter Rafael Pineda, Esq., Law Offices of Walter Rafael Pineda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Jennifer A. Parker, Anthony W. Norwood, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*609Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Pedro Berver Meraz and his wife, Maria Jesus Bravo de Berver, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. *See Rostomian v. INS,*210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination. Even assuming Berver Meraz’s membership in a social group, he fails to demonstrate that he has a well-founded fear of persecution based on the existence of general violence and kidnaping in Mexico. *See id.*(concluding that an asylum claim based on general civil strife or widespread random violence is not sufficient to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution).

Because Berver Meraz failed to raise the issues of withholding of removal and CAT relief in the opening brief, the claims are deemed waived. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
III

Calendar No. 352

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 175

To designate the week of May 3, 1998, as ‘‘National Correctional Officers

and Employees Week’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 9, 1998

Mr. ROBB (for himself, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. BRYAN, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr.

D’AMATO, Mr. FORD, Mr. HELMS, Mr. KENNEDY, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.

ROCKEFELLER, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. WARNER, Mr.

CLELAND, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. FEINGOLD,

Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr.

MURKOWSKI, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Ms.

LANDRIEU, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. GREGG, Mr. SPECTER,

Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. DODD,

Mr. GLENN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. WELLSTONE, Mr. ALLARD, Mr.

BREAUX, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr.

DORGAN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. GORTON, Mr. HAGEL, Mr.

HATCH, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. KYL, Mr. KOHL, Mr.

LEVIN, Mr. LOTT, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. MCCONNELL, Ms. MOSELEYBRAUN, Mr. REID, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SMITH of New

Hampshire, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr.

WYDEN, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. KERRY, and Mr. BYRD) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

the Judiciary

APRIL 30, 1998

Reported by Mr. HATCH, without amendment

RESOLUTION

To designate the week of May 3, 1998, as ‘‘National

Correctional Officers and Employees Week’’.
2

SRES 175 RS

Whereas the operation of correctional facilities represents a

crucial component of our criminal justice system;

Whereas correctional personnel play a vital role in protecting

the rights of the public to be safeguarded from criminal

activity;

Whereas correctional personnel are responsible for the care,

custody, and dignity of the human beings charged to

their care; and

Whereas correctional personnel work under demanding circumstances and face danger in their daily work lives:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate designates the week of May

2 3, 1998, as ‘‘National Correctional Officers and Employ3 ees Week’’. The President is authorized and requested to

4 issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United

5 States to observe such week with appropriate ceremonies

6 and activities.

Calendar No. 352

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 175

RESOLUTION

To designate the week of May 3, 1998, as ‘‘NaWeek’’. tional Correctional Officers and Employees

APRIL 30, 1998

Reported without amendment
No. 63889.

protest 59/21795 (New York).

#### Pneumafil Corporation by Intra-Mar Transport Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this-court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
#### Walter Handlin et al., Appellants, v V. Renato Burkhart et al., Respondents.

[632 NYS2d 608]

—In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.), entered September 26, 1994, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the plaintiff Walter Handlin did in fact consent to have the allegedly defamatory report delivered to the union. A plaintiff who authorizes an agent to make an inquiry on his behalf is not to be charged with consent to a defamatory statement made in reply to the inquiry, unless he or she had reason to anticipate that the response might be a defamatory one *(see, Teichner v Bellan,*7 AD2d 247). In view of the meeting which was held in January 1981, at which the defendant V. Renato Burkhart met with the plaintiff Walter Handlin and two representatives from his union and detailed the reasons for Walter Handlin’s requested resignation, Handlin had every reason to anticipate that the report delivered to the union explaining the reasons for his discharge would be defamatory in nature.

We have reviewed the appellants’ remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.
No. 61123.

protests 306895-K/8816, etc. (Chicago).

#### Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protests were dismissed.