alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C o r d e l l 

## C A L I F O R N I A

P

A

C

I

F

I

C O C E A N G u l f o f t h e

F

a r

a l

l o n e s

- P r

o

p o s e d

E

x

p a n s i o n

M

o n t e r e

y B a y N M S

D a v i d

s o n S e a m o u n t

M

a n a g e m e n t Z o n e B a n k

N

M S C o r d e l l

B a n k

P

r

o p o s e d

E

x

p a n s i o n

M

o

n

t e

r e y

B

a y

N

M

S G u l f o f t h e F

a r

a l

l o n e s

N M S S a c r a m e n t o

-

S a n J o a q u i n

D e l t a



### A v a l o n B a y D a n a P o i n t N e w p o r t B a y



# 2 

# -

A u g u s t

, 2 0 1 0 W T R 0 9 0 1 7 2 3

. 1 

### H u n t i n g t o n H a r b o r

O c e a n s i d e

H a r b o r C h a n n e l I s l a n d

H a r b o r

M i s s i o n B a y

S a n D i e g o

B a y 

# C a l i f o r n i a N o D i s c h a r g e Z o n e s

a n d o t h e r P r o t e c t e d C o a s t a l W a t e r s

H u n t i n g t o n H a r b o r

N e w p o r t B a y

O c e a n s i d e

H a r b o r D a n a P o i n t R i c h a r d s o n

B a y

N D Z S a n

F

r a n c i s c o

B a y S a n

F r a n c i s c o

M i s s i o n B a y N D Z

S a n D i e g o B a y

N D Z 

### C h a n n e l

I s l a n d s N M S

0 2 5 5 0 7 5 1 0 0 1 2

. 5

M i l e s S o u r c e : N D Z

- E P A R e g i o n 9 G I S C e n t e r

, S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 6

N M S

- O f f i c e o f N a t i o n a l M a r i n e S a n c t u a r y

- N O A A

, J u n e 2 0 0 9 * P e r c e n t C o a s t a l L e n g t h o f

N M S

, P r o p o s e d N M S & N D Z = 5 1 %

* P e r c e n t A r e a s o f N M S

, P r o p o s e d N M S

,

a n d e x i s t i n g N D Z w i t h i n S t a t e o f C A

M a r i n e W a t e r s = 3 8 % 

## P r o p o s e d N D Z

S t a t e o f C A M a r i n e W a t e r s

i n c l u d i n g 3 m i l e b u f f

e r z o n e

N a t i o n a l M a r i n e S a n c t u a r i e s

( N M S )

N M S P r o p o s e d E x p a n s i o n E x i s t i n g N o D i s c h a r g e Z o n e s

( N D Z )



# E P A

R e g i o n 9 G I S C e n t e r
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gilbert Velez, Also Known as Gilbert Perez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered on July 9, 1987, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of one count of attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and one count of burglary in the first degree and sentencing him to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 1 *Vi*to 3 years, 2 to 4 years and *AVi*to 9 years, respectively, is unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
EXHIBIT 4.10
Description of the Company’s Securities
The following description of our common stock and the provisions of our Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, and Bylaws, as amended, are summaries of material terms and provisions and are qualified by reference to our Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, and the Bylaws, as amended, copies of which have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as exhibits to Registrant’s Form 10K for the year ended June 30, 2021.
Our authorized capital stock consists of 40,000,000 shares of common stock.
The Company is authorized to issue one class of common stock.  Holders of common stock are entitled to one vote for each share of common stock held of record for the election of directors and on all matters submitted to a vote of stockholders.  Holders of common stock do not have cumulative voting rights in the election of directors.  Holders of common stock are entitled to receive dividends ratably, if any, as may be declared by our board of directors out of legally available funds.  The Board of Directors is divided into three classes (which are as nearly equal in number as possible).  Each class is elected for a term of office expiring at the third succeeding annual meeting of stockholders after their respective elections.  Upon our dissolution, liquidation or winding up, holders of common stock are entitled to share ratably in our net assets legally available after the payment of all our debts and other liabilities.  Holders of common stock have no preemptive, subscription, redemption or conversion rights.  There are no sinking fund provisions applicable to the common stock.  The outstanding shares of common stock are fully paid and non-assessable.  A majority of total votes of the holders of common stock is generally required to take action under our Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, and By-laws, as amended.

E-17
Order entered December 3, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00051-CR

FRANCISCO JAVIER ROSALES SANTAMARIA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F17-72122-U

ORDER

Appellant, who was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child under 

the age of fourteen years, filed his brief on November 30, 2020. In the brief, 

appellant identifies the victim by name; he also identifies other children by name.

This Court does not allow a party to file a brief that discloses the names of victims

or the names of witnesses who were children at the time of the offenses, or the 

names of any other children discussed or identified at trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

9.10(b) (“Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing with the 
court, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.”), 

id. 9.10(a)(3) (“Sensitive Data Defined. Sensitive data consists of . . . a birth date, a 

home address, and the name of any person who was a minor at the time the offense 

was committed.”). Accordingly, we STRIKE appellant’s brief.

We ORDER appellant to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, 

an amended brief that identifies any individuals who were children at the time of 

this or any other offense either generically (for example, “victim”) or by initials 

only, including when quoting relevant portions of the record, giving a statement of 

the case, or attaching an appendix.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable 

Stephanie Huff, Presiding Judge, 291st Judicial District Court; to J. Stephen 

Cooper; and to the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office, Appellate Division.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### WIENTJES v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 2, 1953.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 5, 1954.

Gordon B. Winburn, Louisville, for appellant.

, J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., John B. Browning, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

■ PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Jefferson Circuit Court, Criminal Branch. L. R. Curtis, Judge.

Herbert A. Wientjes, Sr., was found guilty of operating a handbook in violation of.KRS 436.440, and his punishment fixed at six months in jail and a fine of $1,000. He has filed a motion for an appeal on the grounds that the evidence was obtained by an illegal search, and that it was error for the trial judge'to examine a prospective juror in chambers and out of the presence of the panel.

We are affirming the judgment because we think the evidence was obtained by a legal search, and that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he examined a prospective juror in chambers and out of the presence of the panel.

Judgment affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC §

§

vs. §

§ 

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA), INC., § 

ZTE (TX), INC.

CIVIL NO:

WA:20-CV-00489-ADA

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY

HEARING

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is set for

DISCOVERY HEARING by Zoom on Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 10:30 AM.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of May, 2021.

ALAND ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00489-ADA Document 79 Filed 05/10/21 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 19

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-18 Filed 03/17/21 Page 1 of 2
From: Rosenthal, Brian A.

To: Jim Etheridge; IPTeam; mark waltfairpllc.com

Cc: Barry K. Shelton (bshelton@sheltoncoburn.com); *** GDC-Dell_WSOU

Subject: WSOU v. Dell -- 129 patent

Date: Friday, February 26, 2021 10:24:50 AM

Counsel,

In WSOU’s Markman brief addressing the “initiating a poll . . .” term for 3 of the ’129 patent, WSOU

acknowledges that the plain and ordinary meaning of “the claim requires that the management

station must be capable of initiating a poll in response to both ‘reporting from the node’ and ‘a time

interval being exceeded.’” As we explained during our meet and confers, we agree with this

understanding. In view of our agreement, we would be willing to construe only the “management

station” term of the phrase “initiating a poll of resources in the nodes of the network by the

management station in response to reporting from the node or a time interval being exceeded” to

mean “a management station that is capable of initiating a poll in response to both reporting from

the node and a time interval being exceeded”. Please let us know if you will stipulate to that agreed

construction so that we can minimize the issues before the Court.

We request a response by close of business March 3.

Thanks,

Brian A. Rosenthal

GIBSON DUNN

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166-0193

Tel +1 212.351.2339 • Mobile +1 703.989.7879 

BRosenthal@gibsondunn.com • www.gibsondunn.com

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-18 Filed 03/17/21 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
February 14, 2003



Deloitte & Touche LLP
1010 Grand Blvd., Suite 400
Kansas City, MO 64106

Ladies & Gentlemen:

As of and for the year ended December 31, 2002, NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. and
subsidiaries (the "Company"), (A wholly owned subsidiary of NovaStar Financial,
Inc.), has complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing
standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform
Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers. As of December 31, 2002 and for
the year then ended, the Company had in effect a fidelity bond in the amount of
$1,000,000, and errors and omissions coverage in the amount of $2,000,000 on any
one mortgage.

Sincerely,

NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.

/s/ W. Lance Anderson
W. Lance Anderson
President


/s/ Christopher S. Miller
Christopher S. Miller
Senior Vice President


/s/ Rodney E. Schwatken
Rodney E. Schwatken
Vice President, Treasurer and Controller
EXHIBIT
32.1





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer


of
Skinny Nutritional Corp.


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 Skinny Nutritional Corp. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald Wilson,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
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.





Dated: April
1, 2010






/s/
      Ronald WilsonRonald
      WilsonChief
      Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)




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
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 194 (Thursday, October 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 59469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25610]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Certification 
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on June 
20, 2000, applicable to workers of PCS Nitrogen, Camanche, Iowa. The 
notice was published in the Federal Register on July 24, 2000 (65 FR 
45620).
    At the request of the petitioners, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New company information 
shows that worker separations occurred at the LaPlatte, Nebraska 
facility of PCS Nitrogen in late 1999-early 2000. The workers produced 
ammonia, urea, nitric acid, ammonium nitrate and fertilizer solutions 
before ceasing in August, 1999.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to cover 
the workers of PCS Nitrogen, LaPlatte, Nebraska.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of PCS Nitrogen who were adversely affected by increased 
imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-36,693 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of PCS Nitrogen, Camanche, Iowa (TA-W-37,693) and 
LaPlatte, Nebraska (TA-W-37,693A) who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after May 22, 1999 through June 20, 
2002 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 
223 of the Trade Act of 1974.


    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 25th day of September, 2000.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-25610 Filed 10-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5618 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain work footwear for 

women. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain work 

footwear for women. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN WORK FOOTWEAR FOR WOMEN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.22.47 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 certain work footwear for women) is amended by striking 

7 the date in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/ 

8 31/2015’’. 

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

10 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5618 IH

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

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

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### MULLINS v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 4, 1953.

*667N. Baxter Jenkins, Whitesburg, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Atty. Gen., Walter C. Herdman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

STEWART, Justice.

Arthur Mullins, convicted of operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated, was fined $100. He has moved for an appeal, urging as a ground for reversal that the lower court abused its discretion when it refused to permit him to make defense under the circumstances we shall describe.

The evidence on the issue raised is set forth in affidavits filed in support of the motion and grounds for a new trial and they disclose these facts: On the day appellant’s case was set for trial, he and his attorney were present in the courtroom. There were sixteen cases on the docket for trial, appellant’s case being the fourteenth on the list, and six of these had been disposed of when the court recessed at noon. This was also the first day of the October term of court and appellant’s attorney asserts it became necessary, soon after lunch, for him to attend a sheriff’s sale in front of the courthouse to protect the interest of some of his other clients, but it seems clear that he did not inform the presiding judge of this fact. The attorney departed on his mission and for some unknown reason appellant also left the courtroom at or about the same time. During their absence appellant’s case was called, it being then 1:30 p. m., and the Commonwealth introduced its proof. Appellant and his attorney returned while the judge was in process of writing the instructions to be read to the jury. Appellant’s attorney promptly explained his absence to the judge and asked for an opportunity to make defense to the charge. This request was refused and the case was submitted to the jury with the result that a default judgment was rendered against appellant. The foregoing facts are not denied by a counter-affidavit, and we must therefore accept them as true.

While we do not in any wise condone the actions of appellant and his attorney in absenting themselves, under the circumstances we have mentioned, still they reappeared in the courtroom before the case was submitted to the jury and within ample time for appellant’s side to have been heard without too great inconvenience to the court. Since the policy of the law is to have every litigated case tried on its merits, judgments by default are not favored, and, as such a judgment deprives a defendant of substantial rights, it is lawful only when duly authorized. 49 C.J.S., Judgments, § 187, page 326.

We conclude that the presiding judge abused his discretion when he refused under the circumstances to allow appellant to make defense to the charge preferred against him.

Wherefore, the motion for an appeal is sustained and the judgment is reversed and remanded for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

HOLIFIELD, STEWART, and HACKEL

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Benjamin D. DUDA

Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 202100184

_________________________

Decided: 18 January 2022

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judges: 

Keaton H. Harrell (arraignment)

Nicholas S. Henry (trial)

Sentence adjudged 14 May 2021 by a general court-martial convened at 

Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction 

to E-1, confinement for 36 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances,

and a dishonorable discharge.

For Appellant: 

Lieutenant Commander W. Scott Stoebner, JAGC, USN
United States v. Duda, NMCCA No. 202100184

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred.1

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

 

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

Case No. 5D22-554

LT Case No. 2020-CF-008217-A-O

JAVONTAE DAVIS, 

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

______________________________/

Decision filed November 1, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Orange County, 

Elaine A. Barbour, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, 

and Allison A. Havens, Assistant 

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, 

for Appellant. 

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, NARDELLA and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q DATED
MARCH 27, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<CIK> 0000094673
<NAME> STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-25-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-27-1998
<CASH>                                       416,599
<SECURITIES>                                  20,701
<RECEIVABLES>                                504,587 <F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                  102,377
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,279,713
<PP&E>                                       301,593 <F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1,731,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        563,896
<BONDS>                                       17,793
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      10,754
<OTHER-SE>                                 1,139,127
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1,731,570
<SALES>                                      337,414
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             484,891
<CGS>                                        169,099
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                253,389
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              55,973
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,129
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               65,370
<INCOME-TAX>                                  24,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           40,570
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  40,570
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.37
<FN>
   <F1> Asset values for the interim period represent
        net amounts.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Rebecca Leeann Hill , Appellant

No. 06

- 21

- 00061

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 6th District Court of
Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 29286 ). Memorandum Opinio n delivered by Justice Stevens

, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed
for want of jurisdiction . Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, Rebecca Leeann Hill , has adequately indicated h er inability to
pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 27, 2021 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk