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

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Airspace Docket No. 00-ACE-22] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

# SUMMARY:

This document confirms the effective date of a direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Elkhart, KS.

# DATES:

 The direct final rule published at 65 FR 45707 is effective on 0901 UTC, November 30, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520C, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2525.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 25, 2000 (65 FR 45707). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on November 30, 2000. No adverse comments were received, and thus this document confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.                

Issued in Kansas City, MO on September 28, 2000.

Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,

Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.

[FR Doc. 00-26525  Filed 10-13-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PVH Corp. (“the Company”) for the quarterly period ended November 2, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Emanuel Chirico, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





|    |                                                                                                                      
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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













Dated:December 11, 2014By:/s/ EMANUEL CHIRICOName:Emanuel ChiricoChairman and Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Co., Ltd. and

Huawei Technologies USA Inc.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-542-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

Please take notice that attorney Brian M. Koide of the law firm ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, 

PLLC appears as counsel of record for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC. Mr. Koide hereby 

requests that all notices required to be given, and all papers required to be served in the 

above-entitled and numbered cause, be copied to and served upon him. 

Dated: November 3, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brian M. Koide

Brian M. Koide 

Virginia Bar No. 46,329

ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324

Southlake, Texas 76092

Telephone: (703) 565-2852

Facsimile: (817) 887-5950 

brian@etheridgelaw.com

Case 6:20-cv-00542-ADA Document 31 Filed 11/03/20 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record via the 

Court's CM/ECF electronic filing system in accordance with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure on November 3, 2020. 

/s/ Brian M. Koide

Brian M. Koide

Case 6:20-cv-00542-ADA Document 31 Filed 11/03/20 Page 2 of 2
07/03/2012 08:34 FAX 2024835142 FAA "' OMS @001/002

UNITED STATES OFAMERICA 

# RECEIVED FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

## JUN 

# 2**~**

# 20J2 

# HEARING DOCK·ET FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Complainant, V. THE LIBERTY FOUNDATION, INC., Respondent. 

# -------------------------------' FAA Case No: 2011-GL-03-0070

1

# aot~;fJ'-177; RESPONDENT'S HEARING REQUEST Respondent, THE LIBERTY FOUNDATION, INC., by and through its undersigned attorneys, pursuant to 14 CFR §13.16 and 14 CFR §13.210, herewith requests a hearing on the Administrator's Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty dated June 

### 5, 2012, received June 

### 8, 2012.
StuartA. Goldstein, 

### P. A. 9350 South Dixie Highway, 1Oth Floor Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (305) 

### 670-1222 Fax: (305) 670-7065 Email:**stuartgoldsteinpa@.~t1.J1!3J** Attorneyfor Respondent : 

### By:

# !ri;'l.**~ib** StuartA. Goldstein

$Illt\nTC'iPlQSCE!Nt'A("'AI IN!;! ,' ,.,07/03/2012 08:34 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS 141002/002

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I 

### HEREBY CERTIFY, 

### that on this 20th 

### day of June, 2012, the original and one copy of this Request was served via United States mail on: Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

### Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D. 

### C., 20591, attention Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-4301 

### Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, 

### and that a copy was served via facsimile 

### (847)**294~7498** 

### and regular United States 

### Mail upon Adrianne Wojcik, Esq., Office 

### of the Regional Counsel, 2300 

### East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 

### 60018.

# By:_kmt_o_~ Stuart

### A. Goldstein

$"CUABTGOLDSTEINPNIU>IJJ£I
.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5659 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5659

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Ethanone, 2,2-dimethoxy-1,2-
                               diphenyl-.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    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 suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Ethanone, 2,2-dimethoxy-1,2-
                               diphenyl-.

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

SECTION 1. ETHANONE, 2,2-DIMETHOXY-1,2-DIPHENYL-.

    (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        Ethanone, 2,2-      Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          dimethoxy-1,2-                                                    12/31/2015
                          diphenyl- (CAS
                          No. 24650-42-8)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          2914.50.30)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[LETTERHEAD
        OF STAF*TEK]
 
 
 **PROMISSORY
        NOTE**
 TO
 MRS.
        PHYLLIS L. BELL
 
 
 $65,000.00
              April
                  19, 2005
 
 
 For
        value
        received, STAF*TEK SERVICES, INC., of Tulsa, Oklahoma, (herein referred to
        as
‘maker’) promises to pay to the order of PHYLLIS L. BELL, (herein referred to as
        ‘payee’) on or before April 25, 2005 the principal sum of Sixty Five Thousand
        and No/100 Dollars ($65,000.00), plus $525.00.
 
 Payment
        of this note shall be as follows: One lump sum payment of $65,000.00 plus
        $525.00 interest.
 
 Maker
        may
        prepay this note in whole or in part without penalty or surcharge at any
        time
        prior to the maturity date.
 
 The
        maker
        hereby severally waives presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment, protest
        and notice to protest, and aggress that extensions of the time for payment
        may
        be granted without notice. In case of legal proceedings to collect this note,
        maker agrees to pay all court costs including reasonable attorneys’ fees to
        payee as prevailing parties in the suit.
 
 IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is signed the 19 th day of
        April, 2005.
 
 
 /s/
                  Shelia Hobens
              
              /s/
                  John H. SimmonsShelia
                  Hobens
              
              John
                  H. Simmons, President, C.E.O.[notary
                  stamp]
              
              Staf*Tek
                  Services, Inc.4870
                  S. Lewis St., Ste. 250Tulsa,
                  Oklahoma 74105
#### GRIGSBY v. STATE.

No. 26389.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 22, 1953.

Wm. H. Hamblen and W. T. McNeil, by Wm. H. Hamblen, Edna, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $400.

■ Bill of exception No. 1 complains of the court’s failure to sustain appellant’s plea in bar based upon former jeopardy. From the bill, it appears that at the prior term of the court the accused had been tried on th'e same charge and that during the course of such trial the jury began their deliberations at 2:15 p. m. and were discharged at 4:00 p. m.. because of their inability to agree upori a verdict. The bill recites that after the jury had deliberated for 45 minutes they reported to the judge that they could not agree, that the judge sent them back, and that at 4:00 o’clock they again reported that they had been unable to agree. At this juncture, the court asked counsel for the State and the accused if they were willing for the jury to be discharged, and neither counsel offered objection. The bill recites that there is no showing that the accused consented to the dismissal qf the jury. The bill was not qualified.

We recently had occasion, in Davis v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 474, 164 S.W.2d 686, to review our decisions on the question of consent of the accused to the dismissal of the jury.

In Hooper v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 42 S.W. 398, we said, “It would be a remarkable case in which 21⁄2 or 3 hours would be a sufficient time to render it altogether improbable that the jury could agree.”

We find no order of the trial judge declaring a mistrial wherein he made findings of fact upon which he predicated such order discharging the jury.

We conclude that the trial court abused his discretion when he discharged the jury after it had deliberated, only one hour and forty-five minutes and that he '■therefore should have sustained the plea of former jeopardy interposed in the instant case.

So concluding, the judgment will be reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-20450

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SEVERIANO MENDEZ-FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CR-729-1

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Severiano MendezFlores has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mendez-Flores has filed a response.

Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Mendez-Flores’s

response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion

for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 26, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 09-20450 Document: 00511274642 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2010
#### Morris S. Brodsky, Appellant, *v.*City of New York, Respondent

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 7, 1957.

*188
      *Martin Lassoff*and *Edioard Volet*for appellant.

*Peter Campbell Brown, Corporation Counsel (Abraham Satran*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Even though the floor of the passageway was being washed or had just been washed when the plaintiff fell, in view of the fact that this passageway was the only means by which the plaintiff could reach the Brooklyn Bridge station, the plaintiff’s proof was sufficient to call on the defendant to show whether the time and manner of the washing were, in the circumstances, appropriate and reasonable. It was, therefore, error to dismiss the complaint at the end of the plaintiff’s case. We do not regard *Curtiss*v. *Lehigh Valley R. R. Co.*(233 N. Y. 554) as laying down a rule of nonliability of universal application to railroads, regardless of the surrounding circumstances. *(Wakeman*v. *New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co.,*272 N. Y. 625.)

The judgment should lie reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Hoestadteb and Tilzeb, JJ., concur; Aurelio, J., dissents.

Judgment reversed, etc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       5,277,000
<SECURITIES>                                 4,914,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               50,076,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   476,000
<INVENTORY>                                102,810,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           150,417,000
<PP&E>                                      13,011,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,334,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             191,263,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       63,263,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,566,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  48,706,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               191,263,000
<SALES>                                     94,505,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            94,505,000
<CGS>                                       64,300,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               64,300,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            28,396,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             259,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,550,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   687,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   863,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit C

Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 29-3 Filed 10/30/20 Page 1 of 3
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 CO., 

LTD. and HUAWEI 

TECHNOLOGIES USA INC.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00533-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00534-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00535-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00536-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00537-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00538-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00539-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00540-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00541-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00542-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00543-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00544-ADA

[DRAFT] DISCOVERY ORDER

Following the Markman hearings, and pursuant to the Court’s Order Governing Proceedings,

the following discovery limits will apply to the twelve cases referenced above:

 Interrogatories: 8 common interrogatories per side (which can be used across all of the

twelve cases above) and 12 case-specific interrogatories (which can be used only for that

specific case);

 Requests for Admission: 10 common RFAs (which can be used across all of the twelve

cases above) and 20 case-specific RFAs (which can be used only for that specific case);

 Requests for Production: 10 common RFPs (which can be used across all of the twelve

cases above) and 35 case-specific RFPs (which can be used only for that specific case);

 Fact (Party) Depositions: 10 common hours per side (which can be used across all of the

twelve cases above) and 21 case-specific hours (which can be used only for that specific

case);

 Fact (Third-Party) Depositions: 21 case-specific hours (which can be used only for that

specific case);

Page | 1

Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 29-3 Filed 10/30/20 Page 2 of 3
Page | 2

 Expert Depositions: 7 hours per expert/per report (unless the expert is opining in 

numerous cases, in which case expert depositions are limited to 7 hours per expert/per 

report for the first case, and 4 additional hours for each additional case in which the expert 

provides a report). 

Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 29-3 Filed 10/30/20 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Lingo Media Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report), I, Khurram R. Qureshi, 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, based on my knowledge:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.



Date: July 14, 2005



Lingo Media Inc.



By:

/s/  Khurram R. Qureshi

_______________________



Khurram R. Qureshi

Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 8

Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 1 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 2 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 3 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 4 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 5 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 6 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 7 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 8 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 9 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 10 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 11 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 12 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 13 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 14 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 15 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 16 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 17 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 18 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 19 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 20 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00541-ADA Document 46-16 Filed 03/05/21 Page 21 of 21