alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MUTUAL FIRE INS. AGENCY OF LOUISVILLE, Inc. v. SLATER & GILROY, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 5, 1954.

*789. Woodward) Hobson & Fulton, Louisville, for appellant.

■‘Mapother & Morgan, Louisviile, for ap-pellee.

COMBS, Justice.

The appellee recovered judgment in the amount of $2,237.20 on a fire insurance policy issued by the appellant. The property damaged by the fire was a furnace and appurtenant parts. When discovered, the fire had escaped from the furnace and covered the entire furnace pit.

The question is whether the damage was caused by a friendly fire or a hostile fire, or by a combination of both. Generally speaking, a fire that burns in a place where it is intended to burn to accomplish an intended purpose is a friendly fire. When a fire breaks out from where it was intended to be it is a hostile fire. Under the ordinary insurance policy, such as the one held by appellee, the insurer is not responsible for damages caused by a friendly fire. New Hampshire Fire Insurance Co. v. Rupard, 187 Ky. 671, 220 S.W. 538; American Towing Co. of Baltimore v. German Fire Insurance Co., 74 Md. 25, 21 A. 553.

There is evidence from which a jury .might have found that part of appel-lee’s .damage was caused by a friendly fire, within the- definition stated above, and that part of the damage was caused after the fire escaped from the furnace and became a hostile fire. As we construe the court’s instructions, the .jury was required either to find for the defendant or to find for the plaintiff. for the full amount of its claim. This was" error. An instruction should have been given which would have permitted the jury to find for plaintiff only that part of its damage which was caused by the fire after it became hostile. See, Progress Laundry & Cleaning Co. v. Reciprocal Exchange, Tex.Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 226.

On another trial, the instruction on the measure of -damages - should follow that suggested in Great American Insurance Co. v. Crume, 266 Ky. 729, 99 S.W.2d 742.

The interest charges paid by ap-pellee on the- loan which was secured to repair the damaged property is not a -proper item of damage and this item should be omitted- from the instructions.

The judgment is reversed" for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 December 27, 2017

t1218

Order 

Clerk

December 27, 2017

155045

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 155045

COA: 334868 

Chippewa CC: 15-001776-FC

STEVEN EDWARD ALEXANDER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

By order of May 2, 2017, the application for leave to appeal the November 8, 2016 

order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decisions in People v 

Steanhouse (Docket No. 152849) and People v Masroor (Docket Nos. 152946-8). On 

order of the Court, the cases having been decided on July 24, 2017, 500 Mich 453 (2017), 

the application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting 

leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration, as on 

leave granted, of: (1) whether offense variables (OV) 11 and 19 were misscored, and, if 

so, whether the defendant is entitled to resentencing, despite the trial court’s departure 

from the guidelines range; and (2) if the defendant is not entitled to resentencing on the 

grounds that OVs 11 and 19 were misscored, whether the defendant’s sentence is 

reasonable under the standard set forth in Steanhouse. In all other respects, leave to 

appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the First Amended Annual Report of Joytoto USA, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Seong Sam Cho, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated:
                May 8, 2008
            /s/
                Seong Sam ChoBy:
                Seong Sam ChoIts:
                Chief Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Joytoto USA, Inc. and will be retained by Joytoto USA, Inc. 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. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-533-ADA 

 § 

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., § 

LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA § 

INC. § 

 § 

 Defendants. § 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

 Defendants Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and Huawei Technologies USA Inc. 

(“Defendants”) hereby file this Notice of Appearance and informs the Court that the following 

attorney has entered this action as counsel for Defendants: 

Kuan-Chieh Tu 

Texas Bar No. 24090443 

MCGUIREWOODS LLP 

2 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 490-0918 

Facsimile: (415) 844-1928 

gtu@mcguirewoods.com 

 In connection with this Notice, Ms. Tu requests that her appearance for Defendants be 

reflected on the Court’s docket and that all future pleadings, Orders, and other papers be served on 

him. 

Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 55 Filed 04/19/21 Page 1 of 3
 2 

Dated: April 19, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Kuan-Chieh Tu 

Jason W. Cook 

Texas Bar No. 24028537 

Shaun W. Hassett 

Texas Bar No. 24074372 

MCGUIREWOODS LLP 

2000 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1400 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Telephone: (214) 932-6400 

Facsimile: (214) 932-6499 

jcook@mcguirewoods.com 

shasset@mcguirewoods.com 

Tyler T. VanHoutan 

Texas Bar No. 24033290 

MCGUIREWOODS LLP 

600 Travis St., Suite 7500 

Houston, TX 77002 

Telephone: (713) 571-9191 

Facsimile: (713) 571-9652 

tvanhoutan@mcguirewoods.com 

Justin R. Lowery (pro hac vice) 

MCGUIREWOODS LLP 

800 East Canal Street 

Richmond, VA 23219 

Telephone: (804) 775.1000 

Facsimile: (804) 775.1061 

jlowery@mcguirewoods.com 

Kuan-Chieh Tu 

Texas Bar No. 24090443 

MCGUIREWOODS LLP 

2 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 490-0918 

Facsimile: (415) 844-1928 

gtu@mcguirewoods.com 

J. Mark Mann 

Texas Bar No. 12926150 

G. Blake Thompson 

Texas Bar No. 24042033 

MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON 

300 West Main Street 

Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 55 Filed 04/19/21 Page 2 of 3
 3 

Henderson, Texas 75652 

Telephone: (903) 657-8540 

mark@themannfirm.com 

blake@themannfirm.com 

Counsel for Defendants Huawei Technologies Co., 

Ltd. and Huawei Technologies USA Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5, I hereby certify 

that on April 19, 2021, all counsel of record who have appeared in this case are being served with 

a copy of the foregoing via the Court’s CM/ECF system 

 /s/ Kuan-Chieh Tu 

 Kuan-Chieh Tu 

Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 55 Filed 04/19/21 Page 3 of 3
#### GREEN v. STATE.

No. 22269.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 4, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1943.

Mel Janes, of Lubbock, for appellant. Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was charged with possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in Scurry County, a dry area. Upon *fi*plea of guilty before the court appellant’s punishment was assessed at a fine of $200.

No bills of exception or statement of facts appear in the record. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing’.

The record in this cause is the same as in No. 22263, 167 S.W.2d 183, against the same appellant, save that in the present record the precise date of the judgment on appellant’s plea of guilty is not shown. The case was tried at the March term, 1942, of the county court, and the delays in perfecting the record are the same as in No. 22263.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Order filed, Auguat 17, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00116-CV

____________

OSAMA ABDULLATIF AND ALI MOKARAM, Appellant

V.

ALI CHOUNDHRI, Appellee

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-27197

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due May 12, 2016. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. On June 30, 2016, this court ordered the court reporter to file the record 

within 30 days. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the 

reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Patricia Palmer, the substitute court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. No further extension will be 
entertained absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are 

jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Patricia Palmer does not timely file the record as ordered, 

we will issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the 

reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The notes to the condensed  consolidated  financial  statements  are an integral
part of such statements and the condensed  consolidated financial information in
this schedule. Figures below are in thousands, except per-share data.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-28-1997             NOV-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-30-1997             MAY-30-1997
<CASH>                                          14,728                  14,728
<SECURITIES>                                    46,387                  46,387
<RECEIVABLES>                                   86,911                  86,911
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,771                   8,771
<INVENTORY>                                     96,169                  96,169
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               271,392                 271,392
<PP&E>                                          82,836                  82,836
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,273                  29,273
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 344,482                 344,482
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,006                  84,006
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        14,237                  14,237
<OTHER-SE>                                     237,963                 237,963
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   344,482                 344,482
<SALES>                                        141,604                 273,409
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               141,604                 273,409
<CGS>                                           90,341                 176,136
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   90,341                 176,136
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   433                   1,270
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  50                      81
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,055                  17,490
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,978                   6,293
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,077                  11,197
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,077                  11,197
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14                     .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14                     .22
        


</TABLE>
#### CUNNINGHAM v. STATE.

No. 25789.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 4, 1952.

No attorney for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Upon his plea of guilty before the court of the offense of burglary, appellant was convicted and assessed punishment at five years in the penitentiary.

The record before us contains neither a statement of facts nor bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7782

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT L. MACKEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CR-01-457, CA-02-1314-0)

Submitted: March 7, 2003 Decided: March 27, 2003

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Mackey, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert L. Mackey seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mackey

has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 2003

WL 431659, at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662). Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1



      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Marc  Ebersole,  certify,  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report  of  National Parking Systems,  Inc. on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such  Form 10-KSB/A fairly  presents  in  all  material  respects  the financial
condition  and  results  of  operations  of  National  Parking  Systems,  Inc.


Date: October 20, 2005



     By:/s/ Marc Ebersole
     --------------------------
     Marc Ebersole
     Chief Executive Officer and
     Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). SS/ R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T E DG ARAL B E R T O P OR T I L L ON O L A S C O ; e t a l., P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E RJr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 72836 A ge nc yN os . A 079- 656- 200

A 079- 656- 190 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E dgarA lbe rt o P ort i l l o- N ol a s c o and M ar i aG om e z - P ort i l l o, na t i ve s and ci t i zen s o f E lS al v ad o r, p et i t i o n fo r rev i ew o f th e B o ardo f Im m i g rat i o n A p p eal s’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng the i rm ot i on t o r e ope n r e m ova lpr oc e e di ngs ba s e d on 

# FI LED JAN 11 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSS S/ Res ea r ch 07- 72836 2 in e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l. W e h av e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a lof am ot i on t o r e ope n and r e vi e w de novo du e p r o c e s s c la im s . L in v . A s h c r o ft , 3 7 7 F .3 d1 0 1 4 , 1 0 2 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b yd e n y in g p e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n to re op en because pet i t i on er s have notes t abl i shed prej ud i ce fr om the al l eged in e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e . Se e id. at10 24 (c hal l enges bas ed on i neff ec t i ve as si st ance o f c o u n s e l r e qu ir e s h o w in g o f p r e ju d ic e ) . P e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n d o e s n o t e x p la in w hataddi t i on alevi dence they w ou l d p re se ntt o est abl i sh a nexus t o a prot ec t ed g r o u n d . Se e O r t i

zv . I NS , 17 9 F . 3d11 48 , 11 53 -54 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). W e m aynotc ons i de rpe t i t i one r s ’ ne w e vi de nc e r e gar di ng c urr e ntc ondi t i ons in E l S a lv a d o r . See 8 U . S . C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( A ) ( “ [ T ] he c ourtof appe a l s s ha l lde c i de th e p e titio n o n lyo n th e a d m in is tr a tiv e r e c o r do n w h ic h th e o r d e ro f r e m o v a l is b a s e d .” ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Russell, Appellant.

(No. 28125

Decided May 1, 1940.)

*Mr. Marvin A. Kelly,*prosecuting attorney, for appellee.

*Mr. Emory F. Smith,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed, *sua sponte,*for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1
  1.
    
    The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2009, to which this
Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and2.
    
    The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 In
Witness Whereof
 /s/ Bernard A. Hausen
    
    
    
    /s/ Robert Y. NewellBernard A. Hausen, M.D., Ph.D
    
    
    
    Robert Y. NewellChief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 1 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 428-2 Filed 01/30/24 Page 1 of 3
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

PROFECTUS TECHNOLOGY LLC,

 Plaintiff

-vsGOOGLE LLC,

 Defendant

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

W-20-CV-00101-ADA

JUDGMENT

This action came before the Court for a trial by jury commencing on September 30, 2021, 

between Plaintiff Profectus Technology LLC (“Profectus”) and Defendant Google LLC 

(“Google”). The issues have been tried and the jury rendered its unanimous verdict on October 6, 

2022 (ECF No. 196). In accordance with the jury verdict, it is hereby ORDERED and 

ADJUDGED that:

1. Google has not directly infringed claims 1, 4, 9, 22, or 30 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,975,308 (“the ’308 Patent”);

2. Google has not induced infringement of claims 1, 4, 9, 22, or 30 of the ’308 Patent;

and

3. Claims 1, 4, 9, 22, and 30 of the ’308 Patent are invalid.

4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), Local Rule CV-54, and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1920, Google is the prevailing party in this case and shall recover its costs from 

Profectus and shall present the Court with an accounting of those costs within 14 days 

from the entry of this Final Judgment.

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 428-2 Filed 01/30/24 Page 2 of 3 Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 220 Filed 06/03/22 Page 1 of 2
2

5. The Court denies all relief not granted by this Judgment.

This is a FINAL JUDGMENT.

SIGNED this 3rd day of June, 2022.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 428-2 Filed 01/30/24 Page 3 of 3 Case 6:20-cv-00101-ADA Document 220 Filed 06/03/22 Page 2 of 2
Order entered November 20, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01423-CV

IN RE CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., Relator

Original Proceeding from the 95th District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-08719

ORDER

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Nowell

Relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s October 31, 

2019 order compelling it to participate in non-binding arbitration. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1. 

After signing the order, respondent judge, the Honorable David Evans, ceased to hold office as 

the presiding judge of the 95th Judicial District Court of Dallas County. Under rule 7.2 of the 

appellate rules, when a judge ceases to hold office and the case is an original proceeding under 

rule 52, we must abate the proceeding to allow the successor judge to reconsider the original 

judge’s decision. TEX. R. APP. P. 7.2(b); see also In re Gonzales, 391 S.W.3d 251, 252 (Tex. 

App.—Austin 2012, orig. proceeding).

Accordingly, we STAY the trial court’s October 31, 2019 order until further order of this 

Court. We ABATE this mandamus petition and instruct the successor judge to reconsider the 

October 31, 2019 order and send to this Court within forty-five (45) days after appointment, his 
or her written ruling on the applicable motions. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (appellate court 

may grant any just temporary relief pending its action on mandamus petition).

/s/ ERIN NOWELL

JUSTICE