alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Pursuant to 5TH CIRCUIT RULE 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIRCUIT

RULE 47.5.4.

1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 13, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 04-51129

Summary Calendar

_______________________

 

MAYNARD L. TUCKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COX TEXAS NEWSPAPERS, L.P., doing business as The Austin

American-Statesman; THE AUSTIN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION,

Defendants - Appellees,

_______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

_______________________

Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Maynard L. Tucker challenges the district court’s

denial of his motion to remand. Because we lack jurisdiction to

review the district court’s order, we dismiss this appeal.

Tucker sued his former employer Cox Texas Newspapers (“Cox”)

and The Austin Human Rights Commission (“AHRC”) in Texas state

court. In this suit, Tucker alleges that Cox violated Title VII
1

 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (2000).

2

 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (1994).

2

of the Civil Rights Act of 19641 and the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act2 by discriminating against Tucker because of his

age and race. Tucker also contends that AHRC did not properly

investigate his claims of discrimination. 

The two defendants removed the case to federal district

court, stating that it presented a federal question. Tucker

moved to remand the case. The district court denied the motion

and ruled that the case was removable because it was based on

federal law. In response, Tucker filed a request for appeal,

which the district court construed as a notice of appeal. This

request only addressed the merits of his motion to remand. 

Tucker did not seek, nor did the district court grant, permission

under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to appeal an interlocutory order.

This court has jurisdiction to review final orders. 28

U.S.C. § 1291. A order denying a request for remand is not a

final order, and without certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b),

we lack jurisdiction to review it. Melancon v. Texaco, Inc., 659

F.2d 551, 552-53 (5th Cir. 1981). Because the district court did

not certify this order, we cannot consider Tucker’s appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Pearle J. Mullin, Defendant.

County Court, Jefferson County,

January 22, 1958.

*284
      *Pearle J. Mullin,*defendant in person.

*Angus G. Saunders, District Attorney,*for plaintiff.

Milton A. Wilts®, J.

The defendant herein has applied for a hearing upon his application for a writ of error *coram nobis.*His moving papers recite several convictions and allege that he was not afforded a “ speedy trial ” upon some of same. None of his moving papers appear to raise any question that could possibly be considered upon an application for a writ of error *coram nobis.*There is no question of fact, it appears. The affidavit of the District Attorney does not substantially dispute any question raised by the defendant that does appear in the moving papers and in the records; but confirms the statement aforesaid, viz., admitting a great deal of defendant’s contentions, there is no dispute as to facts, only as to interpretation of law under which he is presently confined. In other words, it is a question as to whether the defendant is presently incarcerated under an invalid commitment, which is entirely a question of law, and which does not relate to any alleged error of the sentencing court or any other matters that are usually considered under the defendant’s present application. *(People*v. *Richetti,*302 N. Y. 290; *People*v. *Seymour,*208 Misc. 894.)

Since there is no question of fact presented for determination here, the application is denied.

It might very well be that under the proper proceeding, for instance, an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the defendant might have this matter reviewed at further length.

In any event, the applications of the defendant are denied, and the District Attorney is respectfully asked to send a copy of this decision to the defendant, and also a certified copy of the order that he is herewith asked to submit and file in accordance with the above.
July 19, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RONALD KEITH BLOOMINGKEMPER, UNITED SECURITIES ALLIANCE, INC., 

AND MARKETING ALLIANCE, INC., Appellants

NO. 14-08-00651-CV V.

JOHN W. MCCAIN, SAVANNA MCCAIN, TIM SHOULDERS, MICHELLE 

SHOULDERS, TERRY YARBROUGH, MARK YAWS, AMY YAWS, KAREN 

WESSELS, BETTY J. WEST, BOBBY L. WEST, MICHAEL B. COCUREK, JAMES 

PETKAS, LEAH D. PETKAS, JAMES A. TOUCHSTONE, KEVIN WASNER, 

INTREPID INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS, INC., ARMANDO LOPEZ, HILDA 

PEREZ LOPEZ, AND MAXIMO H. MARTINEZ, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment 

signed by the court below on April 16, 2008. Having considered the motion and found it 

meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellants, Ronald Keith Bloomingkemper, United Securities Alliance, Inc., and 

Marketing Alliance, Inc.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
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

DECLARATION OF BRIAN A. ROSENTHAL IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Case 6:20-cv-00481-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 1 of 2
1

I, Brian A. Rosenthal, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney permitted to practice law before this Court pro hac vice and am 

licensed to practice law in New York and the District of Columbia. I am a partner with the law 

firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and counsel of record for Defendants Dell Technologies 

Inc., Dell Inc., EMC Corporation, and VMware, Inc. in the above-captioned action. I have 

personal knowledge and/or am directly informed of the matters stated below and, if called, would 

testify to them under oath.

2. Attached here as Exhibit A are excerpts from the file history of U.S. Patent No. 

9,164,800, specifically from an April 13, 2015 Response and Amendment filed by the applicant. 

These excerpts were retrieved from the United States Patent Office’s website 

(https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair) on October 3, 2020.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: October 5, 2020

/s/ Brian A. Rosenthal___ 

Brian A. Rosenthal

Case 6:20-cv-00481-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
              -----------------------------------------------------

                   CHASE CREDIT CARD OWNER TRUST SERIES 2002-3

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



         The undersigned, an Authorized Officer of the Chase Manhattan Bank USA,
National Association, as Administrator pursuant to the Indenture for the Chase
Credit Card Owner Trust Series 2002-3 does hereby certify that:

                  1. The undersigned is an Authorized Officer pursuant to the
            Indenture to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture
            Trustee.

                  2. This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 3.9 of
            the Indenture.

                  3. A review of the activities of the Issuer during the period
            from the closing date until December 31, 2002, and of performance
            under this Indenture has been made under the supervision of the
            undersigned.

                  4. To the best of the undersigned knowledge, based on such
            review, the Issuer has complied with all conditions and covenants in
            all material respects under this Indenture throughout the period
            from the closing date until December 31, 2002. No default in the
            compliance of any such condition or covenant has occurred or is
            continuing except as set forth in paragraph 5 below.

                  5. The following is a description of each default in the
            performance of the Issuer's obligations under the provisions of the
            Indenture known to the undersigned to have been made during such
            period which sets forth in detail (i) the nature of each such
            default, (ii) the action taken by the Issuer, if any, to remedy each
            such default and (iii) the current status of each such default:
            NONE.


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate
this 28th day of March, 2003.

                                               By CHASE MANHATTAN BANK
                                               USA, National Association,
                                               as Administrator




                                               By:  /s/ Patricia M. Garvey
                                                    ----------------------------
                                               Name: Patricia M. Garvey
                                               Title: Vice President
EXHIBIT 10

Case 6:20-cv-00482-ADA Document 44-12 Filed 11/04/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 6:20-cv-00482-ADA Document 44-12 Filed 11/04/20 Page 2 of 2
#### WALKER v. STATE.

No. 22952.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 8, *1944.*

No attorney for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, and his punishment assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts or bills of exceptions appear in the record, in the absence of which no question has been presented for review. The indictment and all matters of procedure appear regular.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,433
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  166,214
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,936
<INVENTORY>                                     61,377
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               250,814
<PP&E>                                         592,247
<DEPRECIATION>                                 288,345
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 670,587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          204,117
<BONDS>                                        121,726
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,847
<OTHER-SE>                                     252,191
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   670,587
<SALES>                                        246,173
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               246,173
<CGS>                                          218,936
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  236,259
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,386
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,956
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,572
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,761
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,811
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,811
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

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

** **

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Open Energy Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the period ending May 31, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, AidanShields, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 
| (8)    |   | The Report fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act of 1934; and                      |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                   |
| (9)    |   | The information contained in the Report  fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and  results of operations of the Company. |

 
| /s/  Aidan Shields             |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Aidan  Shields                 |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer       |   |
|                           |   |
| Date:  September 15, 2008 |   |

 

1

----
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

IKORONGO TECHNOLOGY LLC and 

IKORONGO TEXAS LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LYFT, INC., 

Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00258-ADA 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

The Honorable Alan D Albright 

DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 

Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) files this Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to 

Respond to Complaint and respectfully shows the following: 

Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint on April 1, 2020 (Dkt. No. 2) and served Lyft on 

April 3, 2020. Lyft’s current response deadline is April 24, 2020. 

The parties have agreed to a 30-day extension for Lyft’s deadline to respond to the 

Complaint. 

Wherefore, Lyft respectfully request that the Court grant this motion and enter an order 

extending the deadline for Lyft to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint to May 25, 2020. 

Case 6:20-cv-00258-ADA Document 12 Filed 04/22/20 Page 1 of 3
2 

Date: April 22, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Syed K. Fareed 

Syed K. Fareed 

Texas State Bar No. 24065216 

BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 

98 San Jacinto Blvd #1500 

Austin, TX 78701 

Telephone: (512) 322-2500 

Facsimile: (512) 322-2501 

E-mail: syed.fareed@bakerbotts.com 

Attorney for Defendant Lyft, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(i), the undersigned hereby certifies that on April 22, 2020 

counsel for Plaintiff conferred by email with counsel for Defendants and agreed that Plaintiff is 

unopposed to the relief requested herein. 

/s/ Syed K. Fareed 

Syed K. Fareed 

Case 6:20-cv-00258-ADA Document 12 Filed 04/22/20 Page 2 of 3
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 22nd day of April 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to 

the following: 

Derek T. Gilliland 

SOREY, GILLILAND & HULL, LLP 

109 W. Tyler St. Longview, Texas 75601 

derek@soreylaw.com 

Karl Anthony Rupp 

NIX PATTERSON L.L.P. 

1845 Woodall Rodgers Fwy., Suite 1050 

Dallas, Texas 45001 

krupp@nixlaw.com 

/s/ Syed K. Fareed 

Syed K. Fareed 

Case 6:20-cv-00258-ADA Document 12 Filed 04/22/20 Page 3 of 3
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

June 25, 2012

h0618

Order 

June 25, 2012

144897

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144897

COA: 302485

Branch CC: 01-107408-FH

ISAAC ALVAREZ GOMEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 14, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the 

case of Chaidez v United States, cert gtd ___ US ___; ___ S Ct ___; ___ L Ed 2d ___; 

2012 WL 1468539 (2012), is pending before the United States Supreme Court and that 

the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to 

appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in 

that case.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5656 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5656

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on methyl-4-trifluoro 
              methoxyphenyl-N-(chlorocarbonyl) carbamate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on methyl-4-trifluoro 
              methoxyphenyl-N-(chlorocarbonyl) carbamate.

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

SECTION 1. METHYL-4-TRIFLUORO METHOXYPHENYL-N-(CHLOROCARBONYL) 
              CARBAMATE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.29.91 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to methyl-4-trifluoro 
methoxyphenyl-N-(chlorocarbonyl) carbamate) is amended by striking the 
date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 190 (Friday, September 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58595-58596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25080]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2000-52]


Petitions for Exemption; Summary of Petitions Received; 
Disposition of Petitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for exemption received and of dispositions 
of prior petitions.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the 
application,

[[Page 58596]]

processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption (14 CFR part 
11), this notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking relief 
from specified requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 
ch. I), dispositions of certain petitions previously received, and 
corrections. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's 
awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory 
activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or 
omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal 
status of any petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on petition received must identify the petition docket 
number involved and must be received on or before October 23, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on any petitions on triplicate to: Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attn: Rule Docket 
(AGC-200), Petition Docket No. ________, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20591.
    The petition, any comments received, and a copy of any final 
disposition are filed in the assigned regulatory docket and are 
available for examination in the Rules Docket (AGC-200), Room 915G, FAA 
Headquarters Building (FOB 10A), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3132.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cherie Jack (202) 267-7271, Forest 
Rawls (202) 267-8033, or Vanessa Wilkins (202) 267-8029 Office of 
Rulemaking(ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) 
of Sec. 11.27 of Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 
part 11).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 26, 2000.
Donald P. Byrne,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.

Petitions for Exemption

    Docket No.: 30178.
    Petitioner: Georgian Aerospace Group, Inc.
    Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR 25.857(e)(4).
    Description of Relief Sought: To permit Sabreliner Model 40 and 60 
series airplanes, to be modified for the carriage of cargo as Class E 
compartments (an STC project), without fully meeting the requirements 
to exclude hazardous quantities of smoke, flames or noxious gases from 
the flight crew compartment.

[FR Doc. 00-25080 Filed 9-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 18

- 00184

- CV

CITY OF HUNTSVILLE

, Appellant

v.

ROSA SALGADO

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12753CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The City of Huntsville appealed the trial court’s denial of the City’s plea to the

jurisdiction. The City has now filed a motion to dismiss the appeal stating that the City

no longer wishes to pursue the appeal. The motion is unopposed by appellee.

Accordingly, the motion is granted, and this appeal is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

.

P . 42.1(a)(1).

TOM GRAY

Chie f JusticeCity of Huntsville v. Salgado Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed June 2 7 , 2018

[CV06]