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

WEST\302958430.1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

§ 

§ 

§

v. § 

§

Civil No. 6:20-cv-00507-ADA 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD, and 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC.,

§ 

§ 

§

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

 Defendant. §

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the following attorney hereby enters his appearance in this 

matter as counsel of record for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc. and consents to electronic service of all papers in this action. 

Dated: May 20, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Brian K. Erickson 

Brian K. Erickson 

DLA PIPER LLP (US)

303 Colorado St., Suite 3000 

Austin, TX 78701 

Telephone: (512) 457-7000 

Facsimile: (512) 457-7001 

brian.erickson@dlapiper.com 

Counsel for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co. 

Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 82 Filed 05/20/23 Page 1 of 2
2 

WEST\302958430.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic 

service are being served this 20th day of May 2023, with a copy of this document via the Court’s 

CM/ECF system. Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail on this same 

date. 

 /s/ Brian K. Erickson 

 Brian K. Erickson 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 82 Filed 05/20/23 Page 2 of 2
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 28, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40348

Summary Calendar

 

ERVIN JOSEPH KENNERSON,

Petitioner-Appellee,

versus

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellant..

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Southern District of Texas

(USDC No. 3:00-CV-642)

_________________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We affirm the district court for the following reasons:

1. For the reasons stated in the magistrate’s report and recommendation
2

and the district court’s opinion and order, we agree that, under

principles of clearly established federal law, the state trial court’s

refusal to reopen the trial prior to closing arguments so that Kennerson

could present the testimony of Michael Pratt violated his constitutional

right to call witnesses in his defense. Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333,

343 (1993); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 & 302

(1973); Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967); see also

Roussell v. Jeanne, 842 F.2d 1512, 1515-16 (5th Cir. 1988).

2. We also agree that grave doubt exists as to whether the state court’s

error “had a substantial and injurious effect” on the verdict. O’Neal v.

McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 435 (1995). 

3. Lastly, we agree that the state habeas court’s necessary conclusions

otherwise, in it’s denial of habeas, were either contrary to, or an

unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. The

district court correctly granted Kennerson’s petition for habeas relief. 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 198 (Thursday, October 12, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60586-60587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26218]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

 50 CFR Part 648

[I.D. 100400C]

Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Surf Clam 
and Ocean Quahog Fishery; Suspension of Minimum Surf Clam Size for 2001

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Suspension of surf clam minimum size limit.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS suspends the minimum size limit of 4.75 inches (12.07 cm) 
for Atlantic surf clams for the 2001 fishing year. This action is taken 
under the authority of the implementing regulations for this fishery, 
which allow for the annual suspension of the minimum size limit based 
upon set criteria. The intended effect is to relieve the industry from 
a regulatory burden that is not necessary, as the majority of surf 
clams harvested are larger than the minimum size limit.

DATES: Effective January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer L. Anderson, Fishery 
Management Specialist, 978-281-9226.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 648.72(c) of the regulations 
implementing the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Atlantic Surf 
Clam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries allows the Administrator, Northeast 
Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) to suspend annually, by 
publication of a notification in the Federal Register, the minimum size 
limit for Atlantic surf clams. This action may be taken unless discard, 
catch, and survey data indicate that 30 percent of the Atlantic surf 
clam resource is smaller than 4.75 inches (12.07 cm) and the overall 
reduced size is not attributable to harvest from beds

[[Page 60587]]

where growth of the individual clams has been reduced because of 
density-dependent factors.
    At its August meeting, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 
(Council) voted to recommend that the Regional Administrator suspend 
the minimum size limit. Commercial surf clam shell length data for 2000 
indicate that only 15.5 percent of the samples were composed of surf 
clams that were less than 4.75 inches (12.07 cm). Based on these data, 
the Regional Administrator adopts the Council's recommendation and 
suspends the minimum size limit for Atlantic surf clams from January 1, 
2001, through December 31, 2001.

Classification

    This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from 
review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 5, 2000.
Bruce C. Morehead,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 00-26218 Filed 10-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510-22 -S
```
Exhibit13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Randgold ResourcesLimited (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 20-F for theyear ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’),I, Roger A. Williams, Finance Director of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge:

|  |          |                                                                                                                     |
|--|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | 1.  | The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) o f theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934;and |

|  |          |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | 2.  | The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company. |

/s/ Roger A. Williams

RogerA. Williams Finance Director June 29,2006

----
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. GT01-1-000]

Take notice that on October 2, 2000, Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC (DOMAC), formerly Distrigas of Massachusetts Corporation, tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet, to become effective December 1, 2000:

Ninth Revised Sheet No. 94

DOMAC states that the purpose of this filing is to record semiannual changes in DOMAC's index of customers.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-26123  Filed 10-11-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Opinion filed April 19, 2012

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-12-00104-CR

__________

IN RE HORACIO JOSE DOHNAL

Original Mandamus Proceeding

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appearing pro se, relator Horacio Jose Dohnal, a prison inmate, has filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus. In his petition, relator asserts that the district judge of the 35th District Court 

of Brown County has failed to rule on his motion for an out-of-time appeal. He requests an order 

from this court directing the district judge to rule on his motion. Finding we lack jurisdiction, we 

will dismiss the petition.

We first note that relator has not filed a proper record or appendix with his petition. In an 

original mandamus proceeding, the petition must be accompanied by a certified or sworn copy of 

every document that is material to a relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying 

proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Relator has not filed any documents supporting his 

mandamus petition. Thus, relator’s petition states facts not supported by evidence included in an 

appendix or record. A relator’s burden on mandamus includes meeting the requirement that 

“[e]very statement of fact in the petition [is] supported by citation to competent evidence 

included in the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g). In short, a relator must supply a 
2

record sufficient to establish the right to mandamus relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 

833, 837 (Tex. 1992).

While relator’s failure to comply with TEX. R. APP. P. 52 would ordinarily require denial 

of his petition, we must dispose of this proceeding on a different ground. The substance of the 

relief that relator seeks by mandamus is essentially a request for postconviction habeas corpus 

relief because he is seeking an order from this court in support of his request for an out-of-time 

appeal. Article 11.07 vests complete jurisdiction over postconviction relief from final felony 

convictions in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 

(West Supp. 2011); Hoang v. State, 872 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Ater v. Eighth 

Ct. of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals is the only court with jurisdiction to consider a motion for an out-of-time appeal. See 

Ater, 802 S.W.2d at 243. The appropriate vehicle for seeking an out-of-time appeal is by 

pursuing a writ of habeas corpus from the Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Article 11.07. 

Portley v. State, 89 S.W.3d 188, 189 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.). The courts of 

appeals have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law matters pertaining to 

proceedings under Article 11.07. In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

April 19, 2012

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

***Certification pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002***

***(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)***

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of American States Water Company and Golden State WaterCompany (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I Robert J. Sprowls, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 
| /s/ Robert J.  Sprowls                                                           |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                             |
| Robert J. Sprowls                                                                |
| Senior Vice  President-Finance, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary |
|                                                                             |
| Date: November 9, 2005                                                      |

 

1

----
Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 55 Filed 12/03/20 Page 1 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 55 Filed 12/03/20 Page 2 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 55 Filed 12/03/20 Page 3 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 55 Filed 12/03/20 Page 4 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 55 Filed 12/03/20 Page 5 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 55 Filed 12/03/20 Page 6 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 55 Filed 12/03/20 Page 7 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 55 Filed 12/03/20 Page 8 of 8
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. 

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) 

INC., AND ZTE (TX), INC.

Defendants.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-487-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-488-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-489-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-490-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-491-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-492-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-493-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-494-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-495-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-496-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-497-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER DENYING ZTE CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Having considered ZTE Corporation’s (“ZTE”) respective Motions for 

Reconsideration of this Court’s Order Granting-in-Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

in the above-titled cases, the Court finds that ZTE has failed to establish a manifest error 

of law or fact and has not presented newly discovered evidence. Because ZTE has failed 

to meet its burden as the movant, the Court finds the motion should be DENIED. 

The propriety of ZTE’s motions aside, the Court does recognize the possibility 

that WSOU will pursue parallel litigations against ZTE USA in another district, 

and therefore raises a possible judicial efficiency concern. However, to the 

Court’s knowledge, WSOU has yet to file such a suit. And while ZTE USA may be 

“likely to file a declaratory judgment action in a proper forum,” ZTE USA has yet to 

bring such an action. Thus, to the extent there is a judicial efficiency concern here, 

that concern remains hypothetical. 

Case 6:20-cv-00489-ADA Document 113 Filed 09/03/21 Page 1 of 2
2 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that ZTE Corporation’s motion is 

DENIED. 

It is further ORDERED that ZTE’s Answer to WSOU’s Amended Complaint is 

due on or before September 17, 2021. 

Signed on September 3, 2021.

Case 6:20-cv-00489-ADA Document 113 Filed 09/03/21 Page 2 of 2
##### 



Exhibit 99.3 PO Box 84013
Columbus GA 31908-4013
Tel. 800,784,5566 (GREENPOINT MORTGAGE LOGO) To : RWT Holdings, Inc. Re : Annual Statement as to Compliance by the Seller Pursuant to Section 6.04 of the
Mortgage Loan Flow Purchase, Sale, and
Servicing Agreement between Greenpoint
Mortgage Funding, Inc. as Seller (the
Seller) and RWT Holdings, Inc. as
Purchaser, dated as of August 1, 2002 (the
Agreement), the undersigned officer of the
Seller, hereby certifies as to the
following: (i) a review of the activities of
the Seller during the calendar year
ended December 31, 2003 (the Applicable
Period) and of the Sellers performance
under the Agreement has been made under
the direct supervision of the
undersigned officer; and (ii) to the best knowledge of the
undersigned officer, based on such
review, the Seller has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Agreement
throughout the Applicable Period, and
there has been no known default in the
fulfillment of the Sellers obligations
throughout such Applicable Period. Very Truly YoursGREENPOINT MORTGAGE
FUNDING, INC.
As Seller/s/ Roy Briggs
Roy Briggs
Title : Vice President
 [SPANISH LANGUAGE]  2300 Brookstone Centre Pkwy Columbus GA 31904
Customer Service Hours: Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 8:00 PM, Eastern
www.greenpointservice.com
This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico was not selected for publication in 

the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the 

citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computergenerated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Filing Date: March 21, 2022

No. S-1-SC-37745

ENOUGH, An Unincorporated

Student Advocacy Group,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RAY JARAMILLO, in his capacity 

as a member of the Las Cruces 

Public School District Board of Education,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY

James T. Martin, District Judge

Walsh Gallegos Treviño Kyle & Robinson P.C.

Elena Martinez Gallegos

Albuquerque, NM

InAccord, P.C.

Daniel A. Ivey-Soto

Daniel M. Hill

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

Kemp Smith LLP

CaraLyn Banks

Las Cruces, NM 

for Appellee

DISPOSITIONAL ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
{1} WHEREAS this matter came on for consideration by the Court under Rule 12-

603 NMRA, and the Court having considered the record proper and the pleadings filed 

with the Court; Chief Justice Michael E. Vigil, Justice C. Shannon Bacon, Justice David 

K. Thomson, Justice Julie J. Vargas, and Justice Briana H. Zamora concurring; 

{2} NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the issues presented by this appeal 

are moot, the district court’s order finding probable cause to begin recall proceedings 

pursuant to the recall act filed on June 11, 2019 is also moot, and DefendantAppellant’s appeal is hereby dismissed.

{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Justice

C. SHANNON BACON, Justice

DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice

JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice

BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

# AGENCY:

Department of Energy.

# ACTION:

Notice of renewal.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, App. 2, and section 101-6.1015(a), title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee has been renewed for a two-year period beginning October 2, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Rachel M. Samuel at (202) 586-3279.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Committee will continue to provide advice to the Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, on long-term planning and priorities in the national nuclear energy research and development program. The Secretary of Energy has determined that renewal of the Committee is essential to the conduct of the Department's business and in the public interest in the connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy by law. The Committee will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law Number 92-463), section 624 of the Department of Energy Act (Public Law Number 95-91), the General Services Administration Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, and other directives and instructions issued in implementation of those acts. 

Issued in Washington D.C. on October 2, 2000. 

James N. Solit,

Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-25921 Filed 10-10-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P