alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2 

16498874.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

LANCE BILBERRY § 

§ 

 Plaintiff, § 

§ 

vs. § 

§ 

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00470 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. 

 Defendants.

§ 

§ 

§ 

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Pursuant to the Federal Rule of Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff Lance Bilberry 

(“Plaintiff”) and Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Defendant”) (collectively the 

“Parties”) stipulate to dismiss this action with prejudice. 

There are no longer any issues in this matter between the Parties to be determined by this 

Court. The Parties hereby stipulate that all claims, causes of action and counter-claims asserted in 

this matter are dismissed with prejudice, with all costs and attorney fees to be paid by the party 

incurring same. 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00470-RP Document 34 Filed 05/06/21 Page 1 of 2
 

Page 2 of 2 

16498874.1 

 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Gregg D. Stevens 

GREGG D. STEVENS

State Bar No. 19182500 

FRANK J. CATALANO 

State Bar No. 24052991 

MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC 

6688 N. Central Expressway, Suite 400 

Dallas, Texas 75206 

Telephone: (214) 445-2406 

Facsimile: (214) 445-2450 

gstevens@mcglinchey.com

fcatalano@mcglinchey.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. 

By: /s/ Amy L.B. Ginsburg 

AMY L.B. GINSBURG, ESQ. 

State Bar No. 24107506 

KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 

30 East Butler Pike 

Ambler, PA 19002 

Telephone: (215) 540-8888 ext. 167 

Facsimile: (877) 788-2864 

Email: aginsburg@creditlaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LANCE 

BILBERRY 

Case 1:20-cv-00470-RP Document 34 Filed 05/06/21 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Standard Motor Products, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James
J. Burke, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
knowledge, that:





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





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





/s/ James J. BurkeJames
      J. BurkeChief
      Financial OfficerAugust
      2, 2010





*         A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Standard Motor Products, Inc. and will be retained by Standard Motor
Products, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
CasarE 

Crk, U S. DL5V 

E D ChaV4I 

San Antonio, Texa® 

20 RICT COUF 

MAy 1 42020 

I Completeft1 1, 2, and 3. 

I Print your ñne and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. 

I Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, 

or on the front if space permits. 1 Article Addressed to: 

The Honorable Greg Abbott 

Office of the Govenor 

1100 San Jacinto 

Austin, Texas 78701 

II IIIIi II1 II III I [H III III HIll II liii III 9590 9402 5679 9346 1882 71 

riii IJ,,,,,Iw ?0 9 2280 0002 0825 3814 

P Form 3811, .JuIy 2015 PSN 1530-02-000-9053 

A. Signature 

0 Agent X 0 Addressee 

B. Received by (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery 

D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes 

If YES, enter delivery 

TX Com 

I 'I 

3. Service Type o Pnority Mall Express® Adult Signature 0 RegIstered Mail o Aduft Signature Restricted Delivery 0 Registered Mall Restricted o CertifIed Mall® ,...eliveiy o CertIfied Mall Restricted Delivery 1VRetum Receipt for 

O Collect on Delivery Merchandise O Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Signature Conflntjflfl' o Insured Mail 0 Signature Conflrmf o Insured Mati Iissstctsd Delivery Restricted Delivery 

Doru,e Return Receipt 

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 83 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC

d/b/a BRAZOS LICENSING 

AND DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., 

DELL INC., EMC CORPORATION,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00473-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00476-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY

This Court, having considered the parties’ briefing, the applicable law, and arguments 

presented during oral argument, hereby DENIES Defendants’ request to stay the above referenced 

cases pending the resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Transfer to the Austin Division. 

Signed this 11th day of November 2022.

____________________________________

HON. DEREK T. GILLILAND

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA-DTG Document 236 Filed 11/11/22 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement No. 333-101627 on Form S-8 of our reportrelating to the financial statements of Center Financial Corporation dated March 30, 2005, November 18, 2005, as to the effects of the restatement described in Note 24 (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatoryparagraph relating to the restatement described in Note 24) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Center Financial Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

 

/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

Los Angeles, California 

March 15, 2006
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON AND COMMON
                         EQUIVALENT SHARE (IN THOUSANDS
                            EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             Quarter Ended           Quarter Ended
                                           September 30, 1997     September 30, 1996
                                                        Fully                 Fully
                                           Primary    Diluted     Primary    Diluted
                                          --------------------    -------------------
<S>                                       <C>         <C>         <C>        <C>  
Net Earning (loss)                        $   (269)   $   (269)   $    627   $    627
                                          ========    ========    ========   ========



Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                         9,019       9,019       6,469      6,469

Excess of shares issuable upon exercise
  of stock options over shares deemed
  retired under the "treasury stock"
  method                                     1,079       1,235         856        983
                                          --------    --------    --------   --------

Weighted average number of common
  and dilutive common equivalent shares
  outstanding                               10,098      10,254       7,325      7,452
                                          ========    ========    ========   ========


Earnings (loss) per common and common
  equivalent share                        $  (0.03)   $  (0.03)   $   0.09   $   0.08
                                          ========    ========    ========   ========
</TABLE>
#### R. S. Saunders, Respondent, *v.*United Mutual Life Insurance Company, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

July 8, 1957.

*286
      *Jawn A. Sandifer*for appellant.

*George Henderson*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The court should not have excluded the physician’s testimony unless objected to by one of the parties *(Roth*v. *Equitable Life Assur. Soc.,*186 Misc. 403, affd. 270 App. Div. 923). In the interests of justice a new trial should be had.

If objection to the medical testimony is raised by the plaintiff, then the presumption that the ailment was material should be applied (Insurance Law, § 149, subd. 4). If no objection is .raised it will then be for the trier of the facts to determine after full disclosure of the insured’s ailment whether defendant would have issued the policy if aware of her condition *(Sieburn*v. *Mutual Life Ins. Co.,*269 App. Div. 846).

The judgment should be unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with $10 costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Pette, Hart and Di Giovanna, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.
EXHIBIT 32.A








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   In connection with
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2009, of Southern Natural Gas Company (the “Company”) as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, James C. Yardley, President, certify (i) that the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.









/s/
      James C. YardleyJames C.
      YardleyPresident(Principal
      Executive Officer)Southern
      Natural Gas Company






May 11,
      2009




A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Southern
Natural Gas Company and will be retained by Southern Natural Gas Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Patricia Stout 

President and CEO 

The Alamo Travel Group, LP 

8930 Wurzbach Road 

San Antonio, Texas 78240 

Dear Ms. Stout: 

GENERAL COUNSEL 

October 21, 2014 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Comment submitted to Docket 

DOT-OST-2014-0056 

Tha.Tlk you for your letter to Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx expressing your views 

about the U.S. Department of Transportation's May 23, 2014; notice of proposed rulemaking 

covering various consumer protection issues, including issues related to the transparency of 

airline ancillary service fees. Secretary Foxx asked me to respond on his behalf. 

We appreciate you taking the time to provide comments on the proposals. All of the comments 

received, including yours, will be considered when making a final determination on the 

proposals. 

In accordance with Department rules applicable to pending proceedings, a copy of your letter 

was placed in our rulemaking docket. A copy of this response will also be placed in the docket. 

If I can provide additional information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Blane A. Workie 

Acting Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE CONTRERAS-CASTRO, AKA Jose 

Castro, AKA Jose Alfredo Contreras,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-73568

Agency No. A205-310-240

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 26, 2016**

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. 

Jose Contreras-Castro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal 

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 3 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 14-73568 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual 

findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations 

created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 

2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on Contreras-Castro’s omission of a knife attack from his written statement

and his testimony on direct and cross-examination. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 

1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of 

circumstances.”); Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2010) (omission

of crucial facts from application constituted substantial evidence supporting 

adverse credibility determination). Contreras-Castro’s explanation for the 

omission does not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 

(9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, ContrerasCastro’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 

1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Contreras-Castro’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same 

testimony the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel 

the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to 
 3 14-73568 

Mexico. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Order entered October 24, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00465-CR

ROYAL DOUGLAS ROBINSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-00017-U

ORDER

On October 5, 2022, the Court struck appellant’s pro se brief because it 

contained sensitive data. Before the Court is appellant’s October 19, 2022 pro se 

motion requesting the Court to use rule of appellate procedure 2 to suspend the 

operation of rules of appellate procedure 9.10(b) and 9.10(a)(3) and redact the 

sensitive data from appellant’s brief. We DENY appellant’s motion and GRANT 

alternative relief as follows.
We DIRECT the Clerk to return to appellant his original brief so that 

appellant may either redact the sensitive information in the brief by hand and refile 

it or use it as a guide for preparing an amended brief. We ORDER appellant to file 

the redacted brief or a new amended brief by November 18, 2022.

We DIRECT the Clerk to transmit a copy of this order to counsel for the 

State and to mail a copy of this order and the original appellant’s brief to Royal 

Douglas Robinson; TDCJ No. 02066342; Michael Unit; 2664 FM 2054; Tennessee 

Colony, Texas 75886.

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA

JUSTICE
#### Dena HEBERT et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 26237.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 18, 1953.

Martin & Shown, by W. E. Martin, Houston, for appellant.

William H. Scott, Crim, Dist. Atty., and .King C. Haynie, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Houston, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

This is a bond forfeiture appeal.

The parties and-the facts are the same as in Hebert v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 255 S. W.2d 201, except that the forfeiture of a different appearance bond is involved.

' The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. . .
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on June 29, 2000, pursuant to section 6(a) of the                           ( print page 59875)                        National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Multiservice Switching Forum (“MSF”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Accelerated Networks, Moorpark, CA; Oki Electric, Chiba, Japan; and Swisscom AG, Berne, Switzerland have been added as parties to this venture. Vertex Networks, San Jose, CA has been dropped as a party to this venture. Also, the following parties have changed their names: Hewlett Packard, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom is now Agilent, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom; Harris & Jeffries, Dedham, MA is now NetPlane, Dedham, MA; and MCIWorldCom, Richardson, TX is now WorldCom, Richardson, TX.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and MSF intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On January 22, 1999, MSF filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on May 26, 1999 (64 FR 28519).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 6, 2000. A notice for this filing has not yet been published in the                     **Federal Register.**

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 00-25720  Filed 10-5-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### ABSTON v. STATE.

No. 25936.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 28, 1952.

E. A. Blair, Lubbock, for appellant.

Dudley Brummett, County Atty., Lubbock, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVID.SON, Commissioner.

This is a conviction for unlawfully transporting whisky in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $400 and three months in jail.

Peace officers were engaged in searching what is referred to as a “travel bureau” in Lubbock County, a dry area. Appellant appeared and, seeing the officers, went to an automobile nearby, grabbed a sack therefrom, and fled. An officer pursued. The officer testified that he saw appellant throw one pint of whisky and also the sack containing another pint to the ground, thereby breaking both pints of whisky.

It was upon this testimony that appellant was convicted of transporting whisky in a dry area.

In the development of its case in chief, the state proved as original testimony that about seven weeks prior to the offense charged, appellant sold to a liquor -control agent a pint of whisky in Lubbock County and that a week thereafter he sold another pint of whisky to the same agent at the same place.

To this testimony appellant objected as being irrelevant, immaterial, and inflammatory because it was proving another and extraneous offense. The bill of exception presenting this matter shows that the testimony as to the sales of whisky was admitted by the trial court upon the theory that it tended to show intent. The bill of exception certifies, and the statement of facts shows, that appellant did not testify and that he offered no defensive testimony upon the trial of the case.

The offense of transporting intoxicating liquor in a dry area is not made to depend upon any special purpose or intent. The transportation is unlawful of and within itself. There being no. *215testimony raising the issue of intent, such defensive theory did not arise under the facts.

No rule of law is perhaps more firmly fixed than that which says that an accused is entitled to be tried for the offense against him, and that proof of other and extraneous offenses is admissible only when it tends to solve some issue arising in the case. Branch’s P. C., Sec. 166; Couch v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 238 S.W.2d 198; Laird v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 242 S.W.2d 374.

As pointed out, the sole issue before the jury in this case was whether appellant transported the whisky as alleged. No defense was urged thereto. Clearly, proof of the two unlawful sales of whis-ky by the appellant was inhibited under the rule stated. As supporting this conclusion, see Scroggins v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 378, 111 S.W.2d 273; Martin v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 62, 204 S.W.2d 627. Other authorities will be found collated under 11 Texas Digest, Criminal Law, <®=3369(6).

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Network Engines, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Gregory A. Shortell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| Dated: May 11, 2009 | /s/ Gregory A. Shortell                           |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                     | **Gregory A.  Shortell*Chief Executive Officer*** |
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 13

                            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 on Form 20-F of Viatel Holding
(Bermuda) Limited (the "Company") for the year ended December, 2004 filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned, in the capacity set forth below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

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

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

Dated: June 30, 2005

/s/ Lucy Woods
-----------------------------
Name: Lucy Woods
Title: Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Brian Muscroft
-----------------------------
Name: Brian Muscroft
Title: Chief Financial Officer

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.