alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Maurice Nance, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence before the hearing court fully supports the finding that defendant’s *pre-Miranda*oral statements *(see, Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436) were voluntarily given and were not the product of a custodial interrogation *(see, People v Yukl,*25 NY2d 585, 589, *mot to amend remittitur denied*26 NY2d 845, *cert denied*400 US 851; *People v Oates,*104 AD2d 907, 910-911). Thus, defendant’s contention that his subsequent written statement, made after he was given his *Miranda*warnings, must be suppressed because the statement was "not sufficiently attenuated from” his oral statements is without merit *(cf., People v Chapple,*38 NY2d *949112). Contrary to defendant’s contention, a custodial environment was not created when the police asked defendant’s brother, who accompanied him to the police station, to remain in the hall during the police interview. The record discloses no deception or other deliberate action by the police to isolate defendant from his brother in order to obtain incriminating statements *(see, People v Winchell,*64 NY2d 826). Furthermore, the record supports the finding that the knife was retrieved from defendant’s apartment pursuant to his voluntary consent to search *(see, People v Cosme,*48 NY2d 286, 290). Finally, defendant’s sentence was neither harsh nor excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.—manslaughter, first degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12254-12255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4856]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Friday March 23, 2012.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered

    Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the event that the times 
or dates of these or any future meetings change, an announcement of the 
change, along with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted 
on the

[[Page 12255]]

Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-
5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-4856 Filed 2-27-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
EXHIBIT 32.01

DEER VALLEY CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 of Deer Valley Corporation (the Company), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles G. Masters, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Charles G. Masters               
|Charles G. Masters                   
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|May 11, 2010
**Exhibit 31.1.1**

*** Certification pursuant to Section 302 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for GSWC***

I, Floyd E. Wicks,certify that:

1)              I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 of GoldenState Water Company (referred to as “GSWC”);

2)              Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3)              Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the GSWC as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4)              GSWC’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for GSWC and have:

a)              designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to GSWC, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

b)             evaluated theeffectiveness of GSWC’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and

c)              disclosed in thisreport any change in GSWC’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during GSWC’s most recent fiscal quarter (GSWC’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, GSWC’s internal control over financial reporting.

5)              GSWC’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the GSWC’s auditors and the auditcommittee of GSWC’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

a)              all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe GSWC’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b)             any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in GSWC’s internal controls over financial reporting.
| Dated: August 9, 2006 | By:    | /s/ FLOYD E. WICKS      |
|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                  |   | Floyd E. Wicks          |
|                  |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

1

----
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-00473-ADA

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

Case No. 6:20-cv-00476-ADA

Case No. 6:20-cv-00477-ADA

Case No. 6:20-cv-00482-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

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-00480-ADA

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

Case No. 6:20-cv-00485-ADA

Case No. 6:20-cv-00486-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY 

KYANNA SABANOGLU

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Withdrawal of Attorney Kyanna 

Sabanoglu (“Defendants’ Motion”). This Court having considered Defendants’ Motion and 

noting it is unopposed, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion be GRANTED.

It is therefore ORDERED that Kyanna Sabanoglu is permitted to withdraw as counsel of 

record for Defendants in this case. ECF notifications to Kyanna Sabanoglu are to be terminated 

in this case.

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 151-1 Filed 02/01/22 Page 1 of 2
SIGNED this ________ day of ____________________, 2022

HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 151-1 Filed 02/01/22 Page 2 of 2
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

CORRINO HOLDINGS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

EXPEDIA, INC. and TRIVAGO N.V.,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00309-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS EXPEDIA, INC. AND TRIVAGO N.V.’S MOTION 

TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

Before the Court is Defendants Expedia, Inc. and Trivago N.V.’s Motion to Strike 

Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions. The Court, having considered same, is of the opinion the 

motion should be GRANTED.

SIGNED this day of ________________, 2021. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00309-ADA Document 41-5 Filed 08/26/21 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.02

        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) OF THE
                        SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  this  amended  quarterly  report  on Form 10-QSB/A for the
quarter  ended  April  1, 2006 of Cytation Corporation (the "Company"), as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I,  Charles  G. Masters, Acting Chief Financial  Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant  to  Rule  13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge:

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

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


/s/  Charles  G.  Masters
-------------------------
Charles  G.  Masters
Acting  Chief  Financial  Officer

Date: July 18, 2006


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.

<PAGE>
#### TRI-STATE PLUMBING & HEATING CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Lola M. JOSSELSON, doing business as Lordier’s Pharmacy et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 29, 1954.

L. C. Fielder, Ashland, for appellant.

E. Poe Harris, R. D. Davis, and Thomas Burchett, Ashland, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Boyd Circuit Court, which dismissed the complaint in an action in which the Tri-State Plumbing & Heating Corporation sought to enforce a mechanic’s lien, in the amount of $1,458, against the owners of certain real estate. We have examined the complaint and we agree with the trial court that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It does not allege any contract with or- written consent by the owners. The allegation that the owners were obligated, by agreement with their tenant, to pay for the kind of improvements made by the plaintiff, does not warrant relief on the theory of unjust enrichment.

The motion for an appeal is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
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, 

Defendants.

Case No. 6:20-cv-00482-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

LETTERS OF REQUEST FOR FOREIGN DISCOVERY FROM GERMANY

Case 6:20-cv-00482-ADA Document 45 Filed 11/06/20 Page 1 of 4
1

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

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

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

and Deposition Topics. The chart below outlines the name of each witness 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. U.S. Pat. No.

A Christopher Öchsner Named Inventor 6:20-cv-00482 7,424,020

B Emmanuelle Wetzel

Executed the 

assignment of the 

patent

6:20-cv-00482 7,424,020

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

Appendices A–B. 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.

Case 6:20-cv-00482-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-00482-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-00482-ADA Document 45 Filed 11/06/20 Page 4 of 4
P.1 

OAR Box 1834 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

3) VI-C-02 

Docket Number: 

A-90-07 

Printed 11/10/2008 2:14:33 PM Sheet 3 of 61 
P.2 

rf<» SM , r

^. 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY 

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD 

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105 

4-W-07 

finu •> 3 199* OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Mr. Jonathan E. Rinde 

Manko, Gold, and Katcher 

Suite 500 

401 City Avenue 

Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 

Dear Mr. Rinde: 

ft - -\995 \l^ 

•

iu\-

^T 

I am replying to your letter of November 4, 1994 summarizing 

our conversations regarding the applicability to your client of 

the term "fuel manufacturer", as used in the Fuels and Fuel 

Additives (F/FA) Registration rule. Based on the description of 

your client in that letter, your client is not viewed as a fuel 

manufacturer for the purposes of EPA's F/FA registration program. 

The reasoning behind this conclusion is that, regardless of your 

client's ownership status vis-a-vis the quantities of fuel being 

additized, your client is acting at the direction of its gasoline 

wholesalers and retailers in an arrangement akin to an "agency" 

relationship. By neither causing nor directing the alteration of 

the fuels under its control, your client does not meet the 

requirements of the definition of "fuel manufacturer" at 40 CFR § 

79.2(d). The gasoline wholesalers or retailers who are directing 

your client to additize fuel are "fuel manufacturers" under 40 

CFR § 79.2(d) . 

In our conversations, I misstated EPA's position as to the 

relevance of your client's ownership or "bare titlehold" to the 

fuel (s) which were being additized. This factor is not relevant 

to determining whether an entity is involved in the "introduction 

into commerce" of a fuel under 40 CFR § 79.2(d). If I can be of 

further assistance, please feel free to contact me at (313) 741-

7825, 8AM to 4PM. 

Sincerely, 

VtA^ 

Kent M. Helmer 

cc: Mary Ellen Levine, OGC 

Susmita Dubey, OGC 

Judy Gray, OMS 

Printed on Recycled Paper
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      I, Harold F. Zagunis, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Sequoia
Residential Funding, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereby certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A, and all reports on
Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of the
Certificates for periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of
Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc.;

      2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, 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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and
servicing agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these
reports;

      4. Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included
in the report and required to be delivered to the trustee in accordance with the
terms of the pooling and servicing agreement, and except as disclosed in the
reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement; and

      5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report
provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in
compliance with the Uniform Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar
procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing agreement, that is included
in these reports.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Morgan Stanley
Dean Witter Credit Corporation, as Servicer, GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.,
as Servicer, Cendant Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer, Bank of America, N.A.,
as Servicer, and GMAC Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer.

Date: May 31, 2005

/s/ Harold F. Zagunis
----------------------------------------
Signature
Name: Harold F. Zagunis
Title: Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
<PAGE>   1



                                                                       EXHIBIT A

                      STARRETT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                EXHIBIT SETTING FORTH THE COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY
                         EARNINGS PER SHARE INFORMATION
                     (In Thousands Except Per Share Amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                       SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                    --------------------
                                                     1996          1995
                                                    -------       ------
<S>                                                 <C>           <C>   


Weighted average number of shares outstanding
 during the period ..........................         6,261        6,261
                                                    =======       ======





Net Income ..................................       $ 4,046       $3,899
                                                    =======       ======





Primary earnings per share:

     Net Income .............................       $   .65       $  .62
                                                    =======       ======
</TABLE>


                                       13
AUG-21-2015 09:19 

U.S. Deportment 

of Tronspartotlon 

Federcsl Aviation 

Administration 

AUG 1 8 2015 

Mr. Thomas A. Enyart 

The Boeing Company 

FAA RENTON 

Southern California Engineering Design Center 

2401 E. Wardlow RoacL Mail Code DS00-0022 

Long Beach, California 90807~1515 

Dear Mr. Enyart: 

; ! 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

P.02/02 

Renton, Washington S8057·335a 

We have received Boeing's petition letter (CP-L4L-15-00278) dated June 29, 2015, 

requesting an exemption from§§ 25.901(c) Amendment 25-126, and 25.981(a)(3) 

Amendment 25-125 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations. This exemption, if granted, 

would allow planned type-design changes to the Model 747-400 (freighters only) and Model 

747-400 BCF center wing tank Fuel Quantity Indication System (FQIS) fuselage wiring 

installation. 

This request was posted on the Department of Transportation's Federal Docket Management 

System.(at Regulations.gov) on August 11, 2015, and has been assigned Docket No. FAA20 15-3166. We are in. the process ofreviewing your request We will contact you if we 

need additional information. 

A summary of your petition will be published in the Federal Register for public comment, in 

accordance with the requirements of§ 11.85. You will be advised ofthe agency's decision 

on your petition as soon as possible. 

If you bave any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please 

contact Mr. Mike Dostert at (425) 227-2132, or by e-mail at Mike.Dostert@faa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

ff(J.;rv :Jh pt.! 

fr ti) Deana M. Stedman . 

\t Transport Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service 

TOTAL P.02
Brief Stricken and Order filed October 10, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00206-CV

____________

LOLITA TOLIVER, Appellant

V.

556 LINDA VISTA, Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1117243

ORDER

On September 25, 2019, appellant filed a brief that is not in compliance with 

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The brief fails to comply with subsections 

a, b, c, d, e, g, h, i, j, and k of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1.

Accordingly, we order appellant’s brief filed September 25, 2019 stricken. 

Appellant is ordered to file a brief that complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure on or before November 12, 2019. If appellant files another brief that does 
2

not comply with Rule 38, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit appellant from 

filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 38.9(a). 

If appellant fails to timely file a brief in accordance with Rule 38, the appeal 

may be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Christopher, Spain, and Poissant

(Justice Christopher dissents and would not strike the brief.)