alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

DROPBOX, INC.,

Plaintiff/CounterDefendant,

v.

MOTION OFFENSE, LLC,

Defendant/CounterPlaintiff.

Civil Action No.: 6:20-cv-00251-ADA

MOTION OFFENSE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DROPBOX, INC.,

Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 6:21-cv-758-ADA

JOINT NOTICE REGARDING DEADLINE TO SUBMIT ORDER

Pursuant to this Court’s Amended Standing Order Regarding Joint or Unopposed Requests 

to Change Deadlines, Dropbox, Inc. (“Dropbox”) and Motion Offense LCC (“Motion Offense”) 

respectfully submit this Joint Notice. The parties, in order to continue working toward an agreed 

submission and based on the unavailability of lead counsel for Dropbox, have agreed to extend the 

deadline to provide a proposed order arising from the May 2, 2022 discovery hearing to on or 

before May 16, 2022.

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 141 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 2
Dated: May 10, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Timothy Devlin

Timothy Devlin (No. 4241)

Derek Dahlgren (pro hac vice)

Alex Chan (Texas Bar No. 24108051)

Mariam Clayton (pro hac vice)

DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC

1526 Gilpin Avenue

Wilmington, Delaware 19806

Tel: (302) 449-9010

tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com

ddahlgren@devlinlawfirm.com

achan@devlinlawfirm.com

mclayton@devlinlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Motion Offense, LLC

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel 

J. Stephen Ravel

Texas State Bar No. 16584975

KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP 

303 Colorado, Suite 2000

Austin, Texas 78701

Tel: (512) 495-6429

Email: steve.ravel@kellyhart.com 

Gregory H. Lantier (pro hac vice)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE

& DORR LLP

1875 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington DC 20006

Tel: (202) 663-6327

Email: gregory.lantier@wilmerhale.com

Liv Herriot (pro hac vice)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE

& DORR LLP

2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400

Palo Alto, CA 94306

Tel: (650) 858-6138

Email: liv.herriot@wilmerhale.com

Attorneys for Dropbox, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that all counsel of record are being served with a copy of the foregoing 

document via the Court’s CM/ECF system on May 10, 2022.

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel 

J. Stephen Ravel

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 141 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 2
#### Ex parte ANDERSON.

No. 25435.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 17, 1951.

No attorney, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

After hearing, Hon. Langston King, Judge of Criminal District Court No. 2 of Harris County, denied appellant’s applica*170tion for release in a habeas corpus proceeding, and remanded relator for extradition under the executive warrant to the State of Alabama, from which order this appeal is prosecuted.

In the absence of a showing to the contrary, it must be presumed that the action of the governor in issuing his executive warrant was proper. See Ex parte Celey, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 454, 10 S.W.2d 94.

There is no statement of facts in the record.

The governor’s warrant appears in all respects regular, and in the absence of a statement of facts, nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Case 5:20-cv-00371 Document 1-1 Filed 03/24/20 Page 1 of 1
#### James Serino, Plaintiff, v Miller Brewing Company, Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, et al., Defendant. Riley Stoker Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendant.

(Appeal No. 3.)

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and cross motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the cross motion by Riley Stoker Corporation for leave to renew a prior motion for summary judgment. The prior motion was instituted by defendant Miller Brewing Company and resulted in a decision favorable to Riley Stoker. A prevailing party is not permitted to renew a motion upon which it has already prevailed, particularly where, as here, the cross motion was made subsequent to the filing of a notice of appeal from the original motion *(see, Diviak v Schulefand,*140 AD2d 950, 951). Moreover, no valid excuse was offered for failing to submit the additional material at the time of the original application *(see, Hughes v*
      *920
      *Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy,*140 AD2d 989). Accordingly, the deposition of Gaylord, which was submitted on the cross motion to renew but which was not before the court on the initial application for summary judgment, is deleted from the record on appeal for the summary judgment proceeding *(see, Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, supra).*(Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Miller, J.—settle record on appeal.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
EXHIBIT 28

Is Redacted In Its Entirety Due to the 

Confidential Nature of the Document

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-30 Filed 12/16/20 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

DROPBOX, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v.

MOTION OFFENSE, LLC,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. Civil Action No.: 6:20-cv-00251-ADA

MOTION OFFENSE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DROPBOX, INC.,

Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 6:21-cv-758-ADA

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Dropbox, 

Inc. (“Dropbox”). Having considered Dropbox’s Motion, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Christine Duh is withdrawn as counsel of record 

for Dropbox. The Court directs the Clerk to remove Christine Duh from the Court’s CM/ECF 

service list as counsel of record for Dropbox.

SIGNED THIS day of , 2022.

ALAN D. ALBRIGHT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 163-1 Filed 08/29/22 Page 1 of 1
|                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History:                                                                              
|                                                                                           
|New York Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                           
|                                                                                           
|New York Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 1      | 23     | 118    | 12     | 1      | 55     | 3      | 0      | 54    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 0      | 43     | 8      | 4      | 0      | 0      | 5      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4904 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4904

         To suspend temporarily the duty on stator/rotor parts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2012

    Mr. Clarke of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on stator/rotor parts.

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

SECTION 1. STATOR/ROTOR PARTS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Stator/rotor parts  Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          designed for use                                                  12/31/2015
                          in a combined
                          generator/
                          electric motor
                          with motor
                          function rated at
                          100 kW, the
                          foregoing
                          certified by the
                          importer for use
                          in hybrid
                          electric vehicles
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          8503.00.95)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5230 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5230

      To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Desmodur E 14.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

  Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Desmodur E 14.

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

SECTION 1. DESMODUR E 14.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.11.80 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 1,2,3-Propanetriol, polymer 
with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene, 2-ethyl-2-(hydroxymethyl)-1,3- 
propanediol, methyloxirane and oxirane) is amended by striking the date 
in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

PATRICK WOOD CRUSIUS,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

EP-20-CR-00389-DCG

ORDER

The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to agree on a deadline for the 

Government to file a notice under 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a). ECF No. 239. The parties propose

January 17, 2023. ECF No. 242.

The proposed deadline provides both parties ample time. As of January 17, 2023, this 

case will have been pending for 1,076 days. There will be 355 days before trial begins on 

January 8, 2024. See ECF No. 236 at 5. By proposing the section 3593(a) deadline, the parties

evidently agree—and the Court concurs—that there will be sufficient time to prepare for trial and 

hear any and all pretrial motions, no matter the Government’s decision.

The Court thus ORDERS that, if the Government decides to file a notice under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3593(a), it SHALL FILE such a notice on or before January 17, 2023. The Government 

must adhere to this deadline. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that it is loath to reset trial, 

and the Court plans to proceed with trial as scheduled.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of September 2022.

DAVID C. GUADERRAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 243 Filed 09/30/22 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 15**

**(KPMG LLP Letterhead)**

August 7, 2006

Southwest WaterCompanyLos Angeles, California

**Re:Registration Statements (Nos. 333-18513, 333-38935, 333-39506, 333-39508,333-109444, 333-117713, and 333-134575) on Form S-8 and the RegistrationStatements (Nos. 333-77881, 333-35252, 333-63196, 333-69662, 333-70194,333-106506, 333-111586, 333-121426, and 333-133399) on Form S-3**

With respect tothe subject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the usetherein of our report dated August 7, 2006 related to our review of interimfinancial information.

Pursuant toRule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is notconsidered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by anindependent registered public accounting firm, or a report prepared orcertified by an independent registered public accounting firm within themeaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Los Angeles,California

----
#### GROOMS v. STATE.

No. 25440.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 7, 1951.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, 1951.

*230■No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., oh Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was fined the sum of $50.00 upon a charge of driving an automobile while intoxicated.

There are two bills of exception in the record, both being in the same condition They relate to what occurred at the time the Highway Patrolman arrived at the scene of the accident where appellant was arrested and afterwards charged with the offense mentioned.

Bill No. 1 is an objection to the State’s witness saying anything as to what occurred after the officer arrived at the scene of the accident in question herein. The bill itself shows that the officer did not testify to anything that took place after foe arrived at the scene of the accident. Therefore, the bill is insufficient in that it fails to show what the objectionable testimony was, if any. Under the general rule laid down in 4 Tex.Jur. p. 303, secs. 210 'and 211, we think the bill evidences no error.

Bill No. 2 is an objection to the arresting officer making the statement that “Grooms admitted foe was driving the pickup.” If there was any error in admitting such statement, it was cured by the fact that Grooms himself took the Stand and admitted that foe was driving the pick-up at such time. We think that this bill is without merit. See 4 Tex.Jur. p. 587, sec. 414, and numerous authorities there cited.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing

MORRISON, Judge.

On motion for rehearing, appellant presents what to us is a novel contention. He sets forth that portion of the court’s charge in which the court defined intoxication. He does not complain about the same, not having obj ected thereto in the trial court, but now says that the proof offered by the State does not meet the definition contained in the charge.

The charge read as follows: “A person is deemed intoxicated within the meaning of the law defining the offense charged against the defendant, when such person does not have the normal use of his physi'cal and mental faculties by reason of the use of intoxicating liquor.”

This Court has held that such a definition (is not necessary, but that giving one, substantially the same as shown above, is not *231error. Lockhart v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 597, 1 S.W.2d 894. However, we call attention to the fact that the arresting officer testified, in part, as follows: “When I stood about one foot distant from Grooms I smelled liquor, Grooms was thick tongued and didn’t talk coherently. I concluded that he was drunk.”

Appellant’s contention may best be answered by a proper realization of what determines the issue in a criminal case. The issue is determined by the indictment or information and appellant’s plea thereto. The charge of the court cannot change or limit the issue thus joined.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
|    |                                                                                    |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q/A of Southwestern Public Service Company; |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
|   | /s/ TERESA S. MADDEN |
|   | Teresa S. Madden |
|   | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Director |
Exhibit 99.9

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 Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. (the Corporation) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David
Bronicheski, Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and

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



|                     |  |  |  |        |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 31, 2011 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ David Bronicheski  
|                     |  |  |  | Name:  |  | David Bronicheski      
|                     |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                     |  |  |  |        |  |
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

,

Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 23, 2016

a1116 

# Order

Clerk November 23, 2016

153654

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153 65 4

COA: 331402

Genesee CC: 13

- 034230

- FH

MARK WILLIAM TONKOVICH,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 10, 2016 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 12
              BellSouth Telecommunications Inc.
          Computation Of Earnings To Fixed Charges
                    (Dollars In Millions)



                                             
                                             For the Three
                                              Months Ended
                                               March 31,
                                                  1998
1. Earnings                                  
                                             
   (a) Income from continuing operations      $   1,225
before deductions for taxes and interest
                                             
   (b) Portion of rental expense             
representative of interest factor                    10
                                             
     TOTAL                                    $   1,235
                                             
2. Fixed Charges                             
                                             
   (a) Interest                               $     137
                                             
   (b) Portion of rental expense             
representative of interest factor                    10
                                             
     TOTAL                                    $     147
                                             
   Ratio (1 divided by 2)                           8.4
----

Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Chancery Division) — Oakley Inc v Animal Ltd and Others

(Case C-267/05) (1)

(2006/C 154/37)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

----

(1)OJ C 229, 17.09.2005.

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 

LINDA JANN LEWIS; MADISON LEE; ELLEN 

SWEETS; BENNY ALEXANDER; GEORGE 

MORGAN; VOTO LATINO; TEXAS STATE 

CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF 

COLORED PEOPLE; and TEXAS ALLIANCE 

FOR RETIRED AMERICANS, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JOHN SCOTT, in his official capacity as the Texas 

Secretary of State, 

Defendant. 

Civil Action 

Case No. 5:20-cv-00577-OLG 

ORDER

Plaintiffs have filed an unopposed motion to drop plaintiff Benny Alexander as a party 

under Rule 21 and request for an indicative ruling under Rule 62.1(a). After giving due 

consideration to this unopposed motion, the Court determines as follows: 

The Court concludes that it would be inclined to grant Plaintiffs’ Rule 21 motion if the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remands the above-captioned case to this Court for that 

limited purpose. 

It is further ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 62.1(b), Plaintiffs shall promptly notify the 

circuit clerk under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1 of the Court’s decision. 

FILED

DEPUTY 

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BY: ________________________________ November 03, 2021

 JU

Case 5:20-cv-00577-OLG Document 49 Filed 11/03/21 Page 1 of 2
2 

SIGNED this ___ day of ____________, 2021. 

_________________________________________

Orlando L. Garcia 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

3rd November

Case 5:20-cv-00577-OLG Document 49 Filed 11/03/21 Page 2 of 2