alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 24-1542

___________________________ 

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Simon L. Wertenberger

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________ 

Submitted: September 30, 2024

Filed: October 3, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Simon L. Wertenberger appeals the district court’s1 denial of his second 

motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this 

court affirms.

1

The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Missouri.
-2- 

Counsel moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Wertenberger established fair and just 

reasons to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 

F.3d 824, 826 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court may permit withdrawal of guilty plea if 

there is a fair and just reason for the withdrawal). 

Upon careful review, this court declines to enforce the appeal waiver, and 

concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to 

withdraw the guilty plea. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 

2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); RamirezHernandez, 449 F.3d at, 826 (denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea reviewed for 

abuse of discretion; even if fair and just reason for withdrawal exists, court must also 

consider whether defendant asserts his innocence of charge, length of time between 

guilty plea and motion to withdraw it, and whether government will be prejudiced if 

court grants motion). This court has independently reviewed the record under 

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and has found no non-frivolous issues for 

appeal. 

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. 

______________________________
Page 1 of 2

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.

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA INC.; 

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO.6:20-cv-00536-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF THE FILING OF A 

PETITION FOR INTER-PARTES REVIEW 

Pursuant to the Court’s Order Governing Proceeding – Patent Case (“Order Governing 

Proceeding”), namely General Issue No. 6, Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos 

Licensing and Development (“WSOU”) hereby provides notice that defendant Huawei 

Technology Co, Ltd. filed a petition requesting inter-partes review of the patent in-suit, U.S. Patent 

No. 7,515,546, on November 30, 2020. See IPR2021-00225. The USPTO has not yet accorded a 

filing date, but one is expected soon. Based on a file accord date of December 15, 2020, the 

expected time for an institution decision is June 15, 2021. If instituted, the expected time for a 

final written decision is June 15, 2022.

Dated: December 14, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Ryan S. Loveless

James L. Etheridge

Texas Bar No. 24059147

Ryan S. Loveless

Texas Bar No. 24036997

Brett A. Mangrum

Texas Bar No. 24065671

Travis L. Richins

Texas Bar No. 24061296

Jeff Huang

Case 6:20-cv-00536-ADA Document 37 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Etheridge Law Group, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324

Southlake, TX 76092

Tel.: (817) 470-7249

Fax: (817) 887-5950

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com

Jeff@EtheridgeLaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR WSOU

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

service are being served this December 14, 2020, with a copy of this document via the Court’s 

ECF system.

/s/ Ryan S. Loveless

Ryan S. Loveless

Case 6:20-cv-00536-ADA Document 37 Filed 12/14/20 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION 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 Kronos International, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report),  I, Harold C. Simmons,
Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  and I,  Gregory M.  Swalwell,  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 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 results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Harold C. Simmons
--------------------------
Harold C. Simmons
   Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Gregory M. Swalwell
--------------------------
Gregory M. Swalwell
   Chief Financial Officer


March 30, 2005


Note: The certification  the registrant  furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed
"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  as
amended,  or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.  Registration
Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference,  except as otherwise  expressly
stated in such filing.
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by
reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-130147 and 333-141207 on Form
S-8, and Registration Statement No. 333-147433 on Form S-3 of our reports dated
February 27, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedules of International Coal Group, Inc. and subsidiaries
and the effectiveness of International Coal Group, Inc.’s internal control over
financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
International Coal Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2008.




/s/ Deloitte &
      Touche LLPCincinnati,OhioFebruary 27,
      2009
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 198 (Thursday, October 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60628-60632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26171]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 00-70]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-
6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 00-70 with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M

[[Page 60629]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12OC00.014


[[Page 60630]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12OC00.015


[[Page 60631]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12OC00.016


[[Page 60632]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12OC00.017

      
      
      
[FR Doc. 00-26171 Filed 10-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-C
Exhibit 11 STERLING BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
Statement Re: Computation of Per Share
Earnings Three Months Ended
 March 31,2008

2007Income from continuing
operations, net of
 tax

$
4,001,891

$
3,571,673Loss from
discontinued operations,
 net of tax





(91,971
)Net income available for
common
 shareholders

$
4,001,891

$
3,479,702Weighted average common
shares outstanding


17,920,938


18,645,423Add dilutive effect
of:Stock
options


199,087


482,633Adjusted for assumed diluted
computation


18,120,025


19,128,056Income from continuing
operations, net of
 tax, per average common share:Basic

$
0.22

$
0.19Diluted

$
0.22

$
0.19Loss from discontinued
operations, net of
 tax, per average common share:Basic

$


$
Diluted

$


$
(0.01
)Net income per average common
share:Basic

$
0.22

$
0.19Diluted

$
0.22

$
0.18 40
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO WAO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs.

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA), INC.,

ZTE (TX), INC.

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO:

WA:20-CV-00492-ADA

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY DISCOVERY HEARING

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

DISCOVERY HEARING by Zoomoom on Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 02:30 PM.

set

IT 23rd day of September, 2021.

Alan D Albright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00492-ADA Document 117 Filed 09/23/21 Page 1 of 1
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 CHARLES DEONTE PATTEN , Petitioner ,
v. Case No. 5D 16

- 2102 STATE OF FLORIDA , Respondent

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed December 2, 201 6 Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County, J. Michael Traynor , Judge. Charles Deonte Patten, St. Augustine, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent

- Tripp, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach , for Respondent.

EVANDER , J. Petitioner, Charles Deonte Patten, seeks certiorari review of a trial court order denying his request for investigative costs. Petitioner wa s charged with attempted second

- degree mur der of a law enforcement officer with a firearm (Count I); carrying a concealed firearm (Count II); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Counts III
and IV ). He was initially assigned court

- appointed counsel. However, Petitioner2

subsequently executed a waiver of counsel following a Faretta 1 inquiry. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a pro se motion to incur costs for private investigative funds, alleging he was indigent and needed the assistance of a private investigator to prepare his defense.
T he trial court entered an order denying Petitioner’s motion, concluding that the waiver of
P etitioner’s constitutional right to court

- appointed counsel “ necessarily include [ d ] a waiver of the expenses court

- appointed counsel would have been entitled, such as investigative services and other personnel. ” The State properly concedes that the trial court’s order constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law and that the p etition should be granted. The Florida Legislature has expressly autho rized a pro se litigant, who is eligible to be represented by a public defender, to seek payment for the provision of due process
services:
A person who is eligible to be represented by a public

defender under s. 27.51 but . . . who is proceeding pro se, m ay move the court for a determination that he or she is indigent for costs and eligible for the provision of due process services, as pre s cribed by ss. 29.006 and 29.007, funded by the state. § 27.52(5), Fl a. Stat. (2016). Accordingly, a criminal defendant is not required to accept the services of a public defender in order to obtain reasonable costs. See , e.g. , Thompson v. State , 525 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Price v. Mounts , 421 So. 2d
690 , 691 (Fla. 4th DC A 1982). Section 27.52(5) sets for th those factors that are to be considered by a trial court in determining whether a defendant is indigent for costs and eligible for the provision of

1 Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806 (1975).3

due process services. On remand, the trial court is to apply those factors when reconsidering Petitioner’s motion. PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED; CAUSE REMANDED.

LAWSON, C.J. and SAWAYA , J., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5722 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5722

To suspend temporarily the duty on strontium europium halophosphate for 
              use in the production of fluorescent lamps.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on strontium europium halophosphate for 
              use in the production of fluorescent lamps.

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

SECTION 1. STRONTIUM EUROPIUM HALOPHOSPHATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Strontium           Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          halophosphate                                                     12/31/2015
                          doped with
                          europium used as
                          a luminophore
                          (CAS Nos. 109037-
                          74-3 and 1312-81-
                          8) (provided for
                          in subheading
                          3206.50.00)......

    (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>
```
#### VOGEL v. STATE.

No. 22549.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 9, 1943.

Parker & Powell, of Brownwood, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for possessing whisky in a container to which no stamp was affixed showing the payment of the tax due thereon to the State of Texas. The punishment assessed is confinement in the county jail for a period of sixty days.

The complaint and information appear sufficient to properly charge the offense. The record is before us without a statement off facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which no question has been presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
1 

# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-0138V Filed: May 28, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

STEVEN STREETER,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU); Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Patricia Ann Finn, Patricia Finn, P.C., Nanuet, NY, for petitioner. Mollie Danielle Gorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey , Chief Special Master:

On January 29, 2018, Steven Streeter (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Inju ry Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he received an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on January 19, 2016, and subsequently suffered from GuillainBarré syndrome (“GBS”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Offi ce of Special Masters.

On May 28, 2019, respondent filed a comb ined Rule 4(c) report and Proffer on Damages in which he concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report/Proffer at 1. Specifically, re spondent states that

1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the Un ited States Court of Federal Claims' website. This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and mo ve to redact medical or other information, the

disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this def inition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. Because this unpublished ruling contai ns a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, undersigned is required to post it on the Unit ed States Court of Federal Claims' website in

accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services).

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755.2 “[b]ased on the medical records . . . petitioner has satisfied th e criteria set forth in the revised Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualific ations and Aids to Interpretation, which afford petitioners a presumption of causati on if onset of GBS occurs between three and forty-two days after receipt of a seasonal flu vacci nation and there is no apparent
alternative cause.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agr ees that the medical records demonstrate that petitioner has experienced the residual e ffects of his GBS for more than six months and therefore, has satisfied all legal pr erequisites for compensation

under the Act. Id.

In view of respondent’s positio n and the evidence of record, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

Brynne Soukup

vs.

Frontier Airlines, Inc., Flight Services &

Systems, LLC

§

§

§

§

§

NO: AU:20-CV-00648-RP

ORDER

 The Court sets and directs the parties, or counsel acting on their behalf, to appear by phone

for an initial pretrial conference on October 28, 2020 at 09:00 AM . Counsel for Plaintiff shall be

responsible for coordinating the call and providing dial-in information at least 24 hours prior to the

hearing to opposing counsel and to the Courtroom Deputy at julie_golden@txwd.uscourts.gov.

The parties should be prepared to discuss potential trial settings as the Court intends to set a trial

date in this action at the initial pretrial conference.

Until the Court enters a scheduling order in this case and absent additional instruction from

the Court, the parties shall abide by all agreed deadlines set out in their proposed scheduling order

 SIGNED on 23rd day of October, 2020.

______________________________

ROBERT PITMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 24 Filed 10/23/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 24 Filed 10/23/20 Page 2 of 2
### Design Line 13 - Loss A**djustment Calculations**
**KVA 1500**  **1500 1500**  **Voltage 12470-480Y**  **25000-480Y 34500-480Y**  **BIL (kv) 95/10**  **125/10 150/10**  **DL DL12**  **DL13 DL13**  **Core Const** M4 MITER M4 MITER H1/M3 MITERM4 MITERH1/M3 MITER H0-DR **Construction** Round (disk) Round (disk) Round (disk) **Efficiency**

**Level** EL2 **Current DOE Level** 99.12% 99.09% 99.09% 99.09% 99.09% **DOE Efficiency** 99.30% ? ? **Max DOE watts** 5287 **Impedance** 5.75% 5.75% 5.75% **NL (W)** 2709 3853 3211 4546 3788 3476 **FL (W) (50%, 75 C)** 2540 2329 2329 2272 2272 2272 **Total W** 5249 6182 5540 6818 6060 5748 **Watss Change to EL2** 17.77% 5.54% 29.89% 15.46% 9.51% **Calc Efficiency** 99.30% 99.18% 99.10% 99.20% **Conductor Weight** 1344 1226 1230 **Core Weight** 6308 8805 10489 **Conductor** AL AL AL **Primary A**  **/si** 600 598 586 **Secondary**

**A /si**  820 821 784 **Flux (KL)** 89.1 89.8 89.4 **Flux (KG)** 13.8139534913.92248062 13.86046512

0900006481131bfe.xlsx 10/2/2012 **Coil Length (in)** 54 59 65 **Core Height** 57 62 68 **End Margin** 5.5 8 10 **Coil OD** 22.125 25.75 27.5 **Core Height (in)** 77 84 92 **High Low** 1.3125 2.12 2.8 **Primary Mean Turn**  62.2 71.6 76.9 

### Summary According to this data, designs greater than 95 BIL are already equivalent to the agreed upon efficiency of EL2 for DL12 based on a worse case scenario of 150 BIL. Equivalent current densities, flux densities, core construction and impedances force the losses up 30% from a similar 15 kv class 95 BIL design. Theuse of high

-B core steel (H0

-DR) allowed for a more efficient design to achieve an increase in losses of 10% as agreed to by the NEMA proposal.

0900006481131bfe.xlsx 10/2/2012
AMENDMENT TO SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN 
FOR JAMES A. HUGHES
BY UNITY BANCORP, INC.
​
This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Supplemental Retirement Plan for James A. Hughes effective January 1, 2014, as subsequently amended effective October 25, 2018 (as so amended, the Plan”) between James A. Hughes (“Hughes”) and Unity Bancorp, Inc. (“Unity”) is entered into as of this 9th day of September, 2021.
WHEREAS, Hughes and Unity are parties to the Plan;
WHEREAS, Hughes and Unity wish to amend the Plan as set forth herein;
NOW, THEREFORE for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the parties hereto, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:
		1)	Amendment to Article III of the Plan.  Article III of the plan is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:

​
“Executive shall be entitled to a retirement benefit, commencing on or after his attainment of age 66, in an amount equal to sixty (60%) percent of the average of his base salary for the thirty-six (36) months immediately preceding his Separation from Service for reasons other than Cause, (the “Retirement Benefit”), subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Article 4 and other parts of the Plan. The Retirement Benefit shall be adjusted annually thereafter by a percentage equal to the Consumer Price Index, as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) as of December 31 of the prior year. The maximum number of annual payments to Executive shall be fifteen (15).”
​
		2)	Effective Date of Amendment.  Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, this Amendment will be effective as of August 26, 2021.

​
		3)	Plan Still in Full Force and Effect.  Except as amended by this Amendment, the Plan will remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.  


​
(signatures on next page)
​
​



In witness whereof, the parties have signed, or caused their duly authorized agents to sign, this Amendment as of the date first above written.
​
UNITY BANCORP, INC.
​
By: /s/ George Boyan
​
Name: George Boyan
​
Title: EVP/CFO
​
​
JAMES A. HUGHES
​
/s/ James A. Hughes