alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 24

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 207-18 Filed 07/25/22 Page 1 of 2
WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development,

3

Lost

(2.22%)

122 Settled

(90.37%)

10 Won

(7.41%)

135

CASES

Case Outcomes in Selected Role

WDTX (174)

EDVA (12)

PTAB (44) 250

CASES

Courts Where This Party Has Litigated as Patentee

2400 Networ.. 2800 Semico.. 3600 Transp.. 3700 Mecha.. Computers, ..107

127

16

3

2

Technology Centers of Cases - Patentee

Infringed Not infringed

Invalid Not invalid Unenforceable Not unenforceable 0

0

12

2

0

0 Determinations (Patentee)

Amendment allowed Amendment not allowed Not Unpatentable Unpatentable 1

0

0

0

PTAB Determinations - Patentee

Stipulated/Agreed Non-Stipulated

Note: The below figures represent combined totals for all selected parties. If multiple

parties were selected to create this profile, these figures do not account for them

appearing on the same case(s).

Claim Constructions Accusations Cases 250

474

490 Case Stats - Patentee

Permanent injunctions Preliminary injunctions/TR.. Aggregate damages $ amo..

0

0 Remedies For Party - Patentee

Stipulated/Agreed Non-Stipulated

2020

2021

2022 1

16

131

8

33

61 Cases Per Year as a Patentee

Still Active Terminated

Opposing Parties

Show opposing parties: With Outcomes Without Outcomes Show parties with outcomes: No Outcome Opponent Lost Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed

Show Opponent Type(s): All

Search Opposing Parties All Arista Networks, Inc. Canon Inc. Canon USA, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc. Dell Inc. Dell Technologies Inc. EMC Corporation F5 Networks, Inc. Google LLC f/k/a Google Inc. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co. Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. f/k/a Huawei Device .. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. f/k/a Huawei Device (Dongguan) .. Huawei Device USA, Inc. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.

Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed

Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed

Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed Opponent Lost Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed

Firms Representing Selected Parties as Patentee Showing Firms: Top 20 All

Show Counsel Type(s): Show Only Local Counsel Exclude Local Counsel

Year of Case Filing Date All values

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 NUMBER OF CASES

Etheridge Law Group Kasowitz Benson Torres Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love Walt Fair Rabicoff Law

The Mort Law Firm

Brown Rudnick Susman Godfrey DiNovo Price Carter Arnett Devlin Law Firm

Corr Cronin Folio Law Group Skiermont Derby Shore Chan Hartline Barger Baker Botts 1

1

1

2

4

5

8

10

11

15

19

30

33

53

75

77

167

The selected parties

typically litigate in the role

of Patentee in Patent Cases. Select a different role to view data in that role. Most Common Role Patentee Patent Challenger

Show Data in Forums: All Forums US District Courts

ITC

PTAB

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 207-18 Filed 07/25/22 Page 2 of 2
Plum Consulting DJI sUAS Preflight

Arrival:

1. Remove case and place on level surface 2. Check distance to nearest airport and or controlled airspace using maps, smartphone or tablet. 3. If required us VHF aviation transceiver or phone to contact tower of field if closer than 5 NM. 4. Inform tower/ CTAF of UAS ops, location, and max height of flight, if required.

Preflight checklist: 1. Remove transmitter 2. Router - On 3. Transmitter - On 4. Toggle Switches - Full Up 5. Video Monitor - On 6. Remove UAS from case. 7. Gimbal Lock & Lens Cap - Removed 8. Micro-SD Card - Inserted 9. UAS Battery - Inserted 10. Place UAS in clear and safe launch zone and recovery position if it returns to home. 11. UAS Battery - On 12.Wifi connection to Monitor - Verified 13. DJI Application - Load 14. DJI Application - Connect to Camera 15. SD Card - Formatted 16. Camera - Full Up 17. Satellite Connections - Verified 18. Charge Levels - Safe for Flight 19.Video Recording - Start 20.Verify area clear of hazards 21.Takeoff

After Takeoff Checklist 1. Hover approximately ten feet above the ground to confirm UAS is under control 2. All sticks operate correctly while in hover -Verified Pre-Landing Checklist 1. Camera - Full Up 2. Video Recorder - Stop 3. Landing Zone - Clear/ Safe
Post-Landing Checklist - Returning to Flight Immediately 1. Battery - Remove & Replace 2. Wifi Connection to Monitor - Verified 3. DJI application - Connect to Camera 4. Verify area near of hazards 5. Takeoff
End of Ops Checklist 1. Battery - Off 2. Transmitter - Off 3. Router - Off 4. Notify Tower/CTAF - End of Ops
#### McCOY v. STATE.

No. 26762.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 20, 1954.

Dick Harbin, Dublin, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the possession of whiskey for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment, three months in jail and a fine of $500.

In view of our disposition of this cause, a recitation of the facts is not deemed necessary.

The information contained one count alleging an offense to have occurred on December 17, 1952.

’ As part of the State’s case in chief, over objection of the appellant, a judgment from the same court finding the appellant guilty of possession of liquor in a dry area for the purpose of sale, and dated March 21, 1949, was read to the jury.

The trial court, in overruling appellant’s objection to the proof Of this prior offense, was probably mislead by what we said in Smiley v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 342, 174 S.W.2d 973. A careful analysis of that case will show, however, that the prior convictions proved in. that case were offenses of selling liquor in a dry area.

In Gaines v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 79, 231 S.W.2d 429, 430, we said:

> “The rule permitting proof of a prior sale has no application to testimony showing that the accused pleaded guilty to or was convicted of possessing whiskey for the purpose of sale on a prior occasion. See Brooks v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 526, 137 S.W.2d 768.”

The distinction and the reason for the rule lies in the fact that possession cases may be bottomed upon a presumption. It is quite possible because of such presump*783tion for a completely law abiding- citizen to be convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose óf sale when in fact he never intended.to sell at all. Such is not the situation when a sale is proven.

For the error set forth, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2768 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2013 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify 

that a duty of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue 

is to ensure that Internal Revenue Service employees 

are familiar with and act in accord with certain taxpayer 

rights. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2768 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Taxpayer Bill of 

3 Rights Act of 2013’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DUTY TO ENSURE THAT IRS EMPLOYEES ARE FA5 MILIAR WITH AND ACT IN ACCORD WITH CER6 TAIN TAXPAYER RIGHTS. 

7 Section 7803 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

8 1986 is amended by redesignating paragraph (3) as para9 graph (4) and by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol10 lowing new paragraph: 

11 ‘‘(3) EXECUTION OF DUTIES IN ACCORD WITH

12 TAXPAYER RIGHTS.—In discharging his duties, the 

13 Commissioner shall ensure that employees of the In14 ternal Revenue Service are familiar with and act in 

15 accord with taxpayer rights as afforded by other 

16 provisions of this title, including— 

17 ‘‘(A) the right to be informed, 

18 ‘‘(B) the right to be assisted, 

19 ‘‘(C) the right to be heard, 

20 ‘‘(D) the right to pay no more than the 

21 correct amount of tax, 

22 ‘‘(E) the right of appeal, 

23 ‘‘(F) the right to certainty, 

24 ‘‘(G) the right to privacy, 

25 ‘‘(H) the right to confidentiality, 

26 ‘‘(I) the right to representation, and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2768 RFS 

1 ‘‘(J) the right to a fair and just tax sys2 tem.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 31, 2013. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT B

Case 6:20-cv-00491-ADA Document 45-5 Filed 12/04/20 Page 1 of 2
12/3/2020 6500 River Pl Blvd - Google Maps

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.392383,-97.8486393,3a,25y,232.39h,79.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s93qKkZKd6XfjnirtpMLBfw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo... 1/1

Image capture: Apr 2019 © 2020 Google

Austin, Texas

Google

Street View

6500 River Pl Blvd

Case 6:20-cv-00491-ADA Document 45-5 Filed 12/04/20 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 204 (Friday, October 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26980]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Computing-Communications Research; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meetings of the Special Emphasis Panel in Computing-
Communications Research (1192):

    Date/Time: October 28-29, 2000; 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: The Asilomar Conference Grounds, 800 Asilomar Boulevard, 
Pacific Grove, CA.
    Contact Person: John Cozzens, Program Director, Signal 
Processing System (SPS), CISE/CCR, Room 1145, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230; (703) 
292-8912.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate SPS CAREER proposals as a part of 
the selection process for awards.

    Date/Time: November 8-10, 2000; 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Room 1120, 
Arlington, VA.
    Contact Person: Wm. Randolph Franklin, Program Director, 
Numeric, Symbolic & Geometric Computation, Room 1145, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 
22230; (703) 292-1912.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate NSG CAREER proposals as a part of 
the selection process for awards.

    Date/Time: November 29-30, 2000; 8 a.m.-6 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Room 1150, 
Arlington, VA.
    Contact Person: Yavuz Oruc, Program Director, Computer Systems 
Architecture, Room 1145, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230; (703) 292-8936.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Computer Systems Architecture 
CAREER proposals as a part of the selection process for awards.

    Purpose of Meetings: Provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Type of Meetings: Closed.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data, such as salaries, and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: October 16, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-26980 Filed 10-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00453-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Q.C. AND P.C.,

CHILDREN

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 231st District Court

of Tarrant County (231-686108-20)

April 25, 2024

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB OF TECH
LABORATORIES, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2003, I, BERNARD M. CIONGOLI,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF TECH LABORATORIES, INC.
HEREBY CERTIFY PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEF, THAT:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
          2003, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the period ended June 30, 2003, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tech
          Laboratories, Inc.

Dated:  August 18, 2003

TECH LABORATORIES, INC.


By: /s/ Bernard M. Ciongoli
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP-HJB Document 113 Filed 10/28/22 Page 1 of 1
#### RIOJAS v. STATE.

No. 23851.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 17, 1947.

No. appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Under an indictment which properly charged him with murder upon malice aforethought, appellant was convicted and his punishment assessed at seven years in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record.

Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
947.59033
#### FOWLER v. STATE.

No. 24720.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 29, 1950.

*513R. P. Watson, Jr., Marshall, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, judge.,

At a term of the County Court of Harrison County, Texas, which convened on the Sth day of September, 1949, and terminated 'by operation of law on the 6th' day of November, 1949, appellant was convicted of the offense of driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated.

On October 31, 1949, and during said term of court, appellant gave notice of appeal and executed an appeal bond in the sum fixed by the court.

The Court of Criminal Appeals does not obtain jurisdiction where appeal bond is resorted to before adjournment of the term at which judgment of conviction was rendered. See Art. 830, C.C.P.; Koerner v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 218 S.W.2d 1004, and cases there cited.

The State’s motion to dismiss is therefore granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Take notice that on January 27, 2000, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso) tendered for filing a revised, partially executed Transportation Service Agreement (TSA) between El Paso and Enron North America Corp. dated December 17, 1999 to be effective February 1, 2000.

El Paso states that the above TSA providing for Block II capacity rights is being filed to comply with the Commission's order issued January 19, 2000 in this proceeding.

Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on or before February 8, 2000. 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. 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).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-2658  Filed 2-4-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





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 Quarterly Report of The Stephan Co. (the "Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank F. Ferola, Chief
Executive 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, to
my knowledge:





(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/
      Frank F. FerolaFrank
      F. FerolaChief
      Executive OfficerMay
      20, 2009
#### Angelo J. Paliotto, Plaintiff, *v.*Sylvia Hartman et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County,

June 27, 1957.

*Friedman, Brenner & Friedman*for Sylvester Cosentino, defendant.

*Angelo J. Paliotto,*plaintiff in person.

George P. Stier, J.

Motion to dismiss the second cause of action against Sylvester Cosentino upon the ground that said action was barred by the Statute of Limitations. Inasmuch as the moving defendant under the second cause of action is an alleged conspirator with the other defendants to accomplish the wrong charged in the first cause of action *(Green*v. *Davies,*83 App. Div. 216) he is united in interest with his coconspirators *964within the meaning of section 16 of the Civil Pi-actice Act. His motion to dismiss the second cause of action as not having been commenced against him within the time limited by law is denied.

Submit order on notice.
ex42






 
 
 
Exhibit 4.2 
 
DESCRIPTION OF THE REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES
 
REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE
 
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 
 
As 
of 
September 
13, 
2021, 
Net 
1 
UEPS 
Technologies, 
Inc. 
(“Net1” 
or 
the 
“Company”)
 
had 
one 
class 
of 
securities 
(“common 
stock”) 
registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 

 

DESCRIPTION OF COMMON STOCK 
 
 

The following 
description of 
the Company’s 
common stock 
is a 
summary and 
does not 
purport to 
be complete. 
It is 
subject to 
and 
qualified
 
in
 
its
 
entirety
 
by
 
reference
 
to
 
the
 
Company’s
 
Amended
 
and
 
Restated
 
Articles
 
of
 
Incorporation
 
(“Articles
 
of
 
Incorporation”)
 
and its 
Amended 
and Restated By-laws 
(“Bylaws”)
, each of 
which are 
incorporated by 
reference as 
an exhibit 
to 
the Company’s 
most recent Annual Report on 
Form 10-K. Net1 encourages you to 
read its Articles of Incorporation, 
Bylaws and the 
applicable provisions of the Florida Business Corporation Act
 
(“FBCA”)
 
for additional information. 
 
General
 
 
Net1’s 
Articles of 
Incorporation 
currently authorizes 
the issuance 
of two 
hundred million 
shares of 
its common 
stock, with 
$0.001 
par 
value. 
Net1’s 
common 
stock 
is 
listed 
and 
principally 
traded 
on 
the 
Nasdaq 
Stock 
Exchange, 
Global 
Select 
Market, 
under 
the 
symbol “UEPS.” Net1’s common 
stock is also listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, under the 
symbol “NT1”. 
 
All outstanding shares of common stock are fully paid and nonassessable 
 
Dividend rights
 
 
Holders of shares of Net1’s 
common stock are entitled to receive dividends 
and other distributions when declared by Net1’s 
board of 
directors 
out 
of 
legally 
available 
funds. 
Payment 
of 
dividends 
and 
distributions 
is 
subject 
to 
certain 
restrictions 
under 
the 
FBCA, 
including 
the requirement 
that after 
making 
any 
distribution 
Net1 
must 
be able 
to meet 
its debts 
as 
they 
become 
due in 
the 
usual 
course of its business. 

 
Voting 
rights 
 
Each holder of common 
stock is entitled to one vote 
per share for the election 
of directors and for all other 
matters to be voted on 
by 
shareholders. Holders of common stock may not cumulate their votes in 
the election of directors. 
 
 
Liquidation and other rights 
 
Upon voluntary 
or involuntary 
liquidation, dissolution 
or winding 
up of 
Net1, holders 
of common 
stock share 
ratably in 
the assets 
remaining 
after payments 
to creditors 
and 
provision 
for the 
preference 
of any 
preferred stock 
according 
to its 
terms. There 
are no 
pre-emptive 
or 
other 
subscription 
rights, 
conversion 
rights 
or 
redemption 
or 
scheduled 
installment 
payment 
provisions 
relating 
to 
shares of common stock. The shares of Net1 common stock are not subject 
to redemption. 
 
Transfer Agent 
 
The Company’s 
transfer agent in the 
United States is 
Computershare Shareowner 
Services LLC, 480 
Washington 
Blvd, Jersey City, 
New Jersey, 07310, 
and the Company’s transfer 
agent in South Africa is JSE Investor Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd.
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 Navstar Media Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

     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.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the SEC or its staff
upon request.

/s/ Ranny Liang
----------------
Ranny Liang
Chief Executive Officer
April 22, 2008


This Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is not "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but is instead furnished as provided by
applicable rules of the Securities Exchange Commission.