alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5332 

To prohibit agency restrictions on conference locations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Ms. BERKLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To prohibit agency restrictions on conference locations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NO RESTRICTION ON CONFERENCE LOCATION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—An agency may not prohibit the 

5 selection of a particular location in the United States for 

6 a conference. 

7 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

8 (1) AGENCY.—The term ‘‘agency’’ has the 

9 meaning given that term in section 5701 of title 5, 

10 United States Code. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5332 IH

1 (2) CONFERENCE.—The term ‘‘conference’’ 

2 means a meeting that is sponsored by an agency. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
NO. 07-11-00460-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

JANUARY 13, 2012

JOHNIE RAY THOMAS, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

NO. 15,556-C; HONORABLE ANA ESTEVEZ, JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

**MEMORANDUM OPINION**

Appellant, Johnie Ray Thomas, filed a notice of appeal on November 16, 2011, challenging the trial court’s adjudication of appellant as guilty of the offense of sexual assault of a child, and sentence of 12 years’ incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  According to the record, appellant was adjudicated and sentenced in open court on October 10, 2011.  We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

In a criminal case in which no motion for new trial is filed, the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the date sentence is imposed in open court.  TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a).  The time within which to file the notice may be enlarged if, within 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice, the party files the notice of appeal and a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3.  Under these rules, appellant's notice of appeal was due to be filed on November 9, 2011.  While appellant’s notice of appeal was filed within 15 days after the deadline, his notice of appeal was not accompanied by a motion for extension of time.  By letter dated November 28, this Court notified appellant that his notice of appeal appeared to have been untimely filed.  Further, that letter provided appellant an opportunity to explain to this Court how we have jurisdiction over this cause.  In response, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal that requested this Court accept the untimely filed notice of appeal because, “[t]here was some confusion as to which case would be appealed.”

A notice of appeal which complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure is essential to vest this Court with jurisdiction.  SeeSlaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998).  If an appeal is not timely perfected, this Court does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal, and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal.  Id. at 210.  

We acknowledge that appellant may be entitled to an out-of-time appeal by filing a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; however, the availability of that remedy is also beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.  See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3 (West Supp. 2010); Ex parte Garcia, 988 S.W.2d 240, 241 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999).  

Consequently, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

								Mackey K. Hancock

									Justice

2

Do not publish.  

3
SERVED: October 28, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

In The Matter Of: 

Redemption Air, Inc. 

Respondent 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS DEPARTMENT OF 

WASHINGTON, DC TRANSPORTATION 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

201• OCT 28 P ll: 55 

Docket RRq)fl-9cft~M1 ~NS 

Case No. 2013AL030106 

NOTICE OF HEARING 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(1) and§ 13.221, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Location 

a. The hearing will be held at the James M. Fitzgerald U.S. Courthouse and Federal 

Building, 222 West 7th Avenue, Room 229, Anchorage, AK 99513 

b. Briefcases, purses, packages, and other items will be subject to search upon entry to 

the building. All individuals must present a valid government-issued I.D. to enter. 

2. Date 

a. The hearing will begin on April17, 2017. 

b. The courtroom is reserved through April 18, 2017. 

3. Time 

a. The hearing will begin at 9:00 a.m. local time and end by 4:00 p.m. each day. 

b. The parties shall vacate the courthouse by 5:00 p.m. each day. 

Attachment: Service List 

0UGCAS M. RA WALD 

Administrative Law Judge 
SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Brent R. Cole, Respondent's Counsel 

Law Office of Brent R. Cole, P.C. 

821 N Street, Suite 208 

Anchorage AK 99501 

TEL: 907-277-8001 

FAX: 907-277-8002 

Glenn H. Brown, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Enforcement Division, Western Team 

222 West 7th A venue, # 14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

TEL: 907-271-5271 

FAX: 907-271-2800 

ONE COPY 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

F~: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0115 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
|    |                                                                                 |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of SCANA Corporation; |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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; |

|              |
|--------------|
|              |  |
|         |   |
| May 25, 2017 |   /s/Kevin B. Marsh |
|         |   Kevin B. Marsh |
|         |   Chairman of the Board, President, Chief Executive Officer and |
|         |   Chief Operating Officer |
IN THE 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., 

AND EMC CORPORATION, 

Defendants.

Case No. 6:20-cv-00475-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

LETTER OF REQUEST FOR FOREIGN DISCOVERY
1

Defendants Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., and EMC Corporation, (collectively 

“Defendants”) seek foreign discovery from third party witnesses residing in Canada. Defendants 

have attached Appendices with Letters of Request which include Document Requests and

Deposition Topics. Defendants respectfully request that the Court execute the Letters of Request

attached as Appendices B and E. Defendants further request that, after the Court has signed the 

Letters of Request, the Clerk of this Court authenticate the Court’s signature under the seal of this 

Court, and return the original signed and sealed executed Letters, and two certified copies of the 

signed and sealed executed Letters, to Defendants’ counsel, Barry K. Shelton, for delivery to the 

proper authority.

Plaintiff, WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development, indicated 

that it reserves the right to serve its own foreign discovery in the future.

Dated: November 6, 2020 By: /s/ Barry K. Shelton

Barry K. Shelton

Texas State Bar No. 24055029

bshelton@sheltoncoburn.com

SHELTON COBURN LLP

311 RR 620, Ste. 205

Austin, TX 78734-4775 

Telephone: 512.263.2165

Facsimile: 512.263.2166 

Attorneys for Defendants
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on November 6, 2020, all counsel of record who are deemed 

to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document through the 

Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(b)(1). 

/s/ Barry K. Shelton

Barry K. Shelton
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.47


January 26, 2001

Infogrames, Inc.
417 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10017

Dear Sir or Madam:

         Reference is hereby made to the purchase of Hasbro Interactive, Inc.
(now known as Infogrames Interactive, Inc.), Games.com, Inc., Atari Interactive,
Inc. and certain other companies, by the undersigned, which was consummated on
or about January 26, 2001 (the "Transaction"). The undersigned acknowledges
that, at its request, Infogrames, Inc. ("II") assisted the undersigned during
the Transaction to successfully complete the Transaction.

         The undersigned hereby agrees to pay a total one-time fee of one
million dollars (US$1,000,000) to II in consideration for II's services rendered
to the undersigned in connection with the Transaction as described above, which
payment will be made in accordance with II's instructions.


                                     Very truly yours,

                                     INFOGRAMES ENTERTAINMENT S.A.



                                     By:
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Name:
                                         Title:



TERMS HEREOF AGREED TO AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY:

INFOGRAMES, INC.

By:
    ---------------------------------------
    Name:
    Title:
---

EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ronald W. Thiessen, Chief Executive Officer of Amarc
Resources Ltd. (the Company), hereby certify 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 my knowledge:

(i)     the Annual
Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016 (the
Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date:
    July 28, 2016By:
    Ronald W. ThiessenTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer


This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Company's Annual Report on Form
20-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5419 

To suspend temporarily the duty on power distributors. 

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 power distributors. 

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

3 SECTION 1. POWER DISTRIBUTORS. 

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 Power distributors (provided for in subheading 

8536.69.80) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5419 IH

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

• (0) 1947A 

cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge 

Law Offices of Michael F. Bohn, Ltd. 

Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, William Fox, certifythat:

 

1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K,and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reportsfiled in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report,of Lehman ABS Corporation, on behalf of Corporate Backed Trust Certificates,Motorola Debenture-Backed Series 2002-12 Trust****(the“Trust”);

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, the information inthese reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the distributionor servicing information required to be provided to the Depositor by theTrustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusionin these reports is included in these reports; and

 

4.     I am responsible for reviewing theactivities performed by the Depositor and the Trustee under the pooling andservicing, or similar agreement, and based upon my knowledge and the annualcompliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed inthese reports, the Depositor and Trustee have each fulfilled its obligationsunder that agreement.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust National Association, asTrustee.

 

Date:  July 22, 2009

 
| **By:**    | **/s/ William Fox**                          | ** ** |
|------------|----------------------------------------------|------------|
| **Name:**  | **William Fox**                              | ** ** |
| **Title:** | **Chief Financial Officer,  Controller and** | ** ** |
| ** ** | **Senior Vice President**                    | ** ** |

 

----
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-48,559-18

EX PARTE JAMES THOMAS GREEN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 715266-H IN THE 248 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of murder and

sentenced to thirty-five years’ imprisonment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his

conviction. Green v. State, No. 14-96-01536-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 28, 1999,

pet. ref’d)(not designated for publication).

In his present application, Applicant raises four grounds. This application, however, presents

a more serious question. This Court’s records reflect that Applicant has filed seven prior
2

applications pertaining to this conviction. It is obvious from the record that Applicant continues to

raise issues that have been presented and rejected in previous applications or that should have been

presented in previous applications. The writ of habeas corpus is not to be lightly or easily abused. 

Sanders v. U.S., 373 U.S. 1 (1963); Ex parte Carr, 511 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). 

Because of his repetitive claims, we hold that Applicant’s claims are barred from review under

Article 11.07, § 4, and are waived and abandoned by his abuse of the writ. This application is

dismissed.

Therefore, we instruct the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals not to accept or file the

instant application for a writ of habeas corpus, or any future application pertaining to this conviction

unless Applicant is able to show in such an application that any claims presented have not been

raised previously and that they could not have been presented in a previous application for a writ of

habeas corpus. Ex parte Bilton, 602 S.W.2d 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).

Copies of this order shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Filed: January 30, 2019

Do not publish
#### Carmelo Murganti, Plaintiff, *v.*Panama Canal Co., Defendant.

City Court of City of New York, Trial Term, New York County,

April 9, 1957.

*Thomas J. Maginms*and *Arthur P. Loughran*for defendant.

*William L. Standard*and *Lester E. Fettel*for plaintiff.

Harold Baer, J.

The defendant moved to set aside or reduce ■a jury verdict of $4,000 in favor of the plaintiff, following a trial for personal injuries. Decision was reserved.

The court does not agree that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. The factual issues, including the veracity of the plaintiff and his witness and the weight to be given to a statement signed by the plaintiff, were decided in plaintiff’s ■favor conclusively by the jury. The court charged the jury fully on the law and there were no objections to the charge. This is not a case where the jury verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence but rather, a situation where the jury, after deliberation, decided the issues raised by the conflicting evidence, in plaintiff’s favor. To set aside such a verdict with respect to the issue of liability would be to inflict the court’s interpretation of the facts upon the jury and to vitiate the role of the jury.

The question of law raised by the defendant with respect to the variance between the complaint and the proof is decided in plaintiff’s favor. The variance was not so serious as to cause defendant a surprise. Defendant knew what plaintiff intended to prove and the granting of the motion to conform the pleadings to the proof was proper under the circumstances.

There remains only the question of the amount of the verdict. The only injury is a lumbo-sacral strain. There is no competent medical testimony of permanency or residual injury ■beyond February 1, 1954 when the hospital records show that plaintiff was “ fit for duty.” The plaintiff’s statement that his back hurt in bad weather was not confirmed by medical testi*61mony. Plaintiff has worked since February 1, 1954. He had no expenses for hospitals, doctors or medicines. He received full basic maintenance from the defendant until he was fit for duty. His only loss was occasioned by his inability to sail with his ship from November 12 to December 7, 1953 and from January 15 to February 1,1954. This caused a loss of approximately 40 days work or about $400 in wages.

In the court’s opinion, the verdict is excessive. It is the duty of the trial court to set aside a verdict when the quantum of the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. A fair and reasonable recovery under the circumstances would be $2,500. The defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict is granted and a new trial is directed in Trial Term, Part III of this court on May 6, 1957 unless the plaintiff consents to reduction of the verdict to $2,500. Upon plaintiff stipulating to accept the reduced amount, judgment may be entered for $2,500, with costs. *(Kligman*v. *City of New York,*281 App. Div. 93; *Conkey*v. *New York Cen. R. R. Co.,*206 Misc. 1077; *Grossman*v. *Boisseau,*104 N. Y. S. 2d 858, affd. 279 App. Div. 1051; *Birenbaum*v. *Rogers Silver Co.,*215 App. Div. 88; Civ. Prac. Act, § 549; 4 Carmody on New York Practice, § 1415.)
IN THE 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, AND VMWARE, 

INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 6:20-cv-00481-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

LETTERS OF REQUEST FOR FOREIGN DISCOVERY FROM INDIA

Case 6:20-cv-00481-ADA Document 45 Filed 11/06/20 Page 1 of 4
1

Defendants’, Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., EMC Corporation, and VMware, Inc., 

(collectively “Defendants”), seek foreign discovery from a third party entity residing in India. 

Defendants have attached an Appendix with a Letter of Request which includes Document 

Requests and Deposition Topics. The chart below outlines the name of the entity Defendants seek 

foreign discovery from, the relevant case number, and the Patent at issue. 

Appx. Name of Witness 

Entity

Relevance of 

Witness/Entity Case No. Relevant Patents

A

Alcatel-Lucent India 

Ltd. and authorized 

representatives

Former assignee of a 

relevant patent 6:20-cv-00481 9,164,800

Defendants respectfully request that the Court execute the Letter of Request attached as 

Appendix A. Defendants further request that, after the Court has signed the Letter of Request, the 

Clerk of this Court authenticate the Court’s signature under the seal of this Court, and return the 

original signed and sealed executed Letter, and two certified copies of the signed and sealed 

executed Letter, to Defendants’ counsel, Barry K. Shelton, for delivery to the proper authority.

Plaintiff, WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development, indicated 

that it reserves the right to serve its own foreign discovery in the future.

Case 6:20-cv-00481-ADA Document 45 Filed 11/06/20 Page 2 of 4
2 

Dated: November 6, 2020 By: /s/ Barry K. Shelton

Barry K. Shelton

Texas State Bar No. 24055029 

bshelton@sheltoncoburn.com 

SHELTON COBURN LLP

311 RR 620, Ste. 205 

Austin, TX 78734-4775 

Telephone: 512.263.2165 

Facsimile: 512.263.2166 

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 6:20-cv-00481-ADA Document 45 Filed 11/06/20 Page 3 of 4
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on November 6, 2020, all counsel of record who are deemed 

to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document through the 

Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(b)(1). 

/s/ Barry K. Shelton 

Barry K. Shelton 

Case 6:20-cv-00481-ADA Document 45 Filed 11/06/20 Page 4 of 4