alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock Incentive Award Notice & Agreement        Onex Communications Corporation
                                                Taxpayer ID #:04-3471055
                                                34 Crosby Drive
                                                Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grantee:

Award Date:

Award Shares:

Award Price Per Share:

Award Type:

Award Expiration Date:

The Plan:               The 1999 Stock Incentive Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective on the Award Date set forth above, Onex Communications Corporation
(the "Company") granted to you a Stock Incentive Award relating to shares of the
Company's common stock (par value $0.001 per share) at the Award Price Per Share
set forth above, on the condition that you enter into this Stock Incentive Award
Agreement with the Company.

The "Award Type" set forth above indicates that you have elected to have the
Award Shares set forth above treated as either Restricted Stock Award Shares
("RSP") or Stock Option Award Shares ("ISO" or "NQ").

The Award Shares shall Vest in installments on the Vesting Dates set forth
below:

      Number of                               Number of
     Award Shares       Vesting Date         Award Shares       Vesting Date





This Stock Incentive Award Agreement (which is referred to as "this Agreement")
consists of (i) the terms and conditions set forth on this page; (ii) the
"Additional Stock Incentive Award Terms & Conditions" (a copy of which has been
furnished to you); and (iii) the terms and conditions of the Plan, (a copy of
which has been furnished to you). An additional copy of the Additional Stock
Incentive Award Terms & Conditions and the Plan will be furnished to you on
request to the Company's Chief Financial Officer.

Onex Communications Corporation           Accepted and Agreed:


By: __________________________________    ______________________________________
       Philip S. Nyborg, President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6680

In Re: KENT GRIFFIN, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 26, 2005 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kent Griffin, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kent Griffin petitions for writ of mandamus, requesting an order requiring the district court to rule on his pending motion under the All Writs Act. Our review of the district court docket sheet reveals that the district court has recently denied Griffin’s motion. Accordingly, because the district court has decided Griffin’s case, we grant permission to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 5, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00724

- CV

Leticia Antoinette BOYD, Appellant

v.

WESTWOOD PLAZA APARTMENTS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CV07739 Honorable J Frank Davis, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due by January 22, 2020

. Neither the brief nor a motion for

extension of time has been filed.

We therefore ORDER appellant to file her appellant’s brief and a written response reasonably explaining her failure to timely file the brief by February 18, 2020 . If appellant fails to file a brief and the written response by the date ordered, we will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a).

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

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

court on this 5th day of February, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 534 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 534

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 217 West King Street, Martinsburg, West Virginia, as the ``W. Craig 
      Broadwater Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2011

 Mrs. Capito introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 217 West King Street, Martinsburg, West Virginia, as the ``W. Craig 
      Broadwater Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 217 
West King Street, Martinsburg, West Virginia, shall be known and 
designated as the ``W. Craig Broadwater Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``W. Craig Broadwater Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
#### ELIZABETHTOWN LINCOLN-MERCURY, Inc. v. JENKINS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 4, 1953.

J. Howard Holbert, Elizabethtown, for appellant.

Hatcher & Lewis, Elizabethtown, for ap-pellee.

CAMMACK, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the appellee, W. M. Jenkins, for $976 for an alleged breach of warranty in the purchase of a new Lincoln automobile-The judgment was entered November 28, 1950, and the appeal was perfected by the filing of a copy thereof with the Clerk of this Court on November 21, 1952. The action was not instituted until some 15 months after Jenkins purchased the car. The basis for it was that the Lincoln-Mercury Company sold Jenkins a used car which turned out to be defective in some respects, instead of a new car as they represented it to him, and on which he paid the new car sales tax.

The appellant contends that (1) the verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence; and (2) the trial court erred in the exclusion of certain evidence relating to the complete transaction concerning the car prior to the time it was sold to Jenkins. It would serve no useful purpose to discuss these questions separately.

The appellant received the car May 1, 1948. On June 8th it sold the car to a Mr. Jones for $3,758.72. The new car tax was paid on that transaction. Jones sold the car to Roy West, a used car dealer. On June 10th, the appellant purchased the car from West for $4,700. For a time the car was used by an officer of the appellant and his family. The car was used some as a demonstrator. It was sold to Jenkins October 15, 1948, for $3,976.57 as a new car, as we have noted. The speedometer had been disconnected and showed only 176 miles. Jenkins had trouble with the car and it was in the appellant’s repair shop on numerous occasions. Jenkins also took it to other places for repair. When the speedometer registered 16,000 miles he had the overdrive overhauled by a mechanic, who had formerly worked for the appellant. The appellant’s testimony showed that this mechanic had been discharged by it. The testimony of this witness was to the effect that the car showed that it had been driven a much greater distance then the speedometer indicated. The appellant made a vigorous attack upon the testimony of this witness, and introduced technical proof in an effort to show that his testimony as to the mechanical work done on the overdrive *663could not be true. Another mechanic testified for Jenkins and his proof substantiated that of the mechanic who overhauled the overdrive.

The appellant’s contention as to the evidence excluded by the trial court concerns, in the main, the price it paid West for the car. This price was $4,700, and, as we view the record, this fact was -brought out before the jury. It is true, however, that on at least one occasion the- court struck from the record the testimony as to the price the appellant paid West for the car. Under the circumstances, we fail to see how the appellant was prejudiced in this respect.

We are of the opinion also that the case was one for the jury.

Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

***Certification pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002***

***(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)***

** **

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of American States Water Company andGolden State Water Company (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I Robert J. Sprowls, Chief Financial Officerof the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

/s/ Robert J. Sprowls

 

Robert J. SprowlsSenior Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary

Date: November 8, 2006

 

 

----
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5293 

To suspend temporarily the duty on HPHP. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. ROE of Tennessee introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on HPHP. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HPHP. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Nonaromatic carboxylic 

acids with alcohol function, 

without other oxygen function, and their derivatives, 

Hydroxypivalyl 

hydroxypivalate, (CAS No. 

1115–20–4) (provided for 

in subheading 2918.19.90) Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5293 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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5417 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5417

  To suspend temporarily the duty on insulated cable for a voltage of 
                   less than or equal to 1,000 volts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on insulated cable for a voltage of 
                   less than or equal to 1,000 volts.

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

SECTION 1. INSULATED CABLE FOR A VOLTAGE OF LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 1,000 
              VOLTS.

    (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        Insulated cable     Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          for a voltage of                                                  12/31/2015
                          less than or
                          equal to 1,000
                          volts (provided
                          for in subheading
                          8544.42.90)......

    (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>
```
| 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                Registrant. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                              |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ JOHN                ANDERSON                                             |   |   |   |
| John                Anderson                                                      |   |   |        |
| Chief                Executive Officer and Chief                Financial Officer |   |   |        |
|                                                                              |   |   |   |
| Date:              April 16, 2007                                                 |   |   |   |

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of Southwest Water Company (the “Company”) for the period endingMarch 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Anton C. Garnier, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:

 

(1)                the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2)                the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:   May  10, 2004 | /s/ ANTON C. GARNIER                          |   |
|----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|                             |                                          |
|                             | **Anton C. Garnier  Chief Executive Officer** |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4735 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4735

      To extend and modify the temporary reduction of duty on ACM.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To extend and modify the temporary reduction of duty on ACM.

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

SECTION 1. ACM.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.10.79 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to ACM) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``1.7%'' and inserting ``2.8%''; and
            (2) by striking the date in the effective period column and 
        inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 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>
```
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Quimba Software, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract Nos. F30602-03-C-O 185 ) 

FA8740-05-C-0085 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59197 

Mr. Robert Dourandish 

CEO 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Carol L. Matsunaga, Esq. 

Senior Trial Attorney 

Srikanti Schaffner, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Carson, CA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

For reasons indicated by one or both parties, the Board is unable to proceed with 

disposition of the above appeal for an inordinate length of time due to factors not within 

the control of the Board. Accordingly, the above appeal is hereby dismissed without 

prejudice pursuant to Board Rule l 8(b ). Unless either party or the Board acts to reinstate 

the appeal within one year from the date of this Order, the dismissal shall be deemed with 

prejudice. 

Dated: 26 August 2014 

&~ Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59197, Appeal ofQuimba Software, 

Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4712 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on volleyballs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on volleyballs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. VOLLEYBALLS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.13.10 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 volleyballs) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2012’’ and in7 serting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) apply with respect to goods entered, or 

10 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

11 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1791

HAZELENE B. MCRAE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Rockingham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-94-727-3)

Argued: May 6, 1997 Decided: June 19, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and STAMP, Chief

United States District Judge for the Northern District of West

Virginia, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: John Francis Eichorn, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Carl Stoner, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of

the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Atlanta,

Georgia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Tamela G. Clayton, Rockingham,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney

General, Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Mary Ann

Sloan, Acting Chief Counsel, Region III, Mack A. Davis, Acting

Deputy Chief Counsel, Haila Naomi Kleinman, Supervisory Assistant

Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Atlanta, Georgia,

for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Hazelene McRae filed claims for a period

of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental

security income. The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") denied her

claims because he found that she retained the residual functional

capacity to perform a limited range of light and sedentary work.

The district court affirmed.

McRae stated on her benefits application and testified at the

ALJ hearing that she performed a wide range of housework and cared

for her invalid family members on a daily basis, she failed to

introduce any medical evidence that she was totally disabled, and

a vocational expert testified that many jobs existed in North Carolina that McRae could perform. We therefore find that substantial

evidence supports the ALJ's finding. See Smith v. Schweiker, 795

F.2d 343, 345 (4th Cir. 1986). The district court's opinion is,

therefore,

AFFIRMED.
20-572

Case 5:20-cv-00572 Document 1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 1 of 7
Case 5:20-cv-00572 Document 1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 2 of 7
Case 5:20-cv-00572 Document 1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 3 of 7
Case 5:20-cv-00572 Document 1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 4 of 7
Case 5:20-cv-00572 Document 1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 5 of 7
Case 5:20-cv-00572 Document 1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 6 of 7
Case 5:20-cv-00572 Document 1 Filed 05/08/20 Page 7 of 7
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

PROVEN NETWORKS, LLC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NETAPP, INC.,

Defendant.

Case Nos. 6:20-cv-00369-ADA, WA:20-MC02959-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

Pursuant to Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for good cause shown, the Court 

ORDERS that the following schedule will govern deadlines:

Original 

Date

Amended 

Date

Item

November 

23, 2021

December 7, 

2021

Opening Expert Reports.

December 

21, 2021

January 21, 

2022

Rebuttal Expert Reports.

January 8, 

2022

February 4, 

2022

Close of Expert Discovery.

January 

11, 2022

February 7, 

2022

Deadline for the second of two meet and confer to discuss 

narrowing the number of claims asserted and prior art references 

at issue to triable limits. 

February 

1, 2022

March 3, 

2022

Dispositive motion deadline and Daubert motion deadline.

March 31, 

2022

Deadline for Responses to Dispositive and Daubert motions 

April 21, 

2022

Deadline for Replies to Dispositive and Daubert motions 

May 12, 2022 Proposed hearing date for dispositive and Daubert motions. 

Case 6:20-cv-00369-ADA Document 70 Filed 12/27/21 Page 1 of 2
2

It is SO ORDERED. 

SIGNED this 27th day of December, 2021. 

________________________________ 

ALAN D ALBRIGHT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00369-ADA Document 70 Filed 12/27/21 Page 2 of 2