alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            20492
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           235
<OTHER-SE>                                      (20727)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 12857
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (12857)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (12857)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

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

No. 22771.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 1, 1944.

G. Q. Youngblood, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty to the offense of misdemeanor theft, appellant was assessed a punishment of 60 days in jail.

*268No statement of facts or bills of exception 'accompany the record.

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.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION






| |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934, as amended; 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/ James J. Giancola  
| |                        
| | Name: James J. Giancola

| |        |                                      
| | ------ | -------------------------------------
| | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ Daniel R. Kadolph  
| |                        
| | Name: Daniel R. Kadolph

| |        |                                                  
| | ------ | -------------------------------------------------
| | Title: | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- ;).Q\~- 6 8\ 2._ 20IS- ,UM-o?7-A:D 

Directorate Identifier: -AD 

Add the work hours. parts cost, and number (!fU.)'. registered products to tlw lab/<! be/oil'. When FOil are 

finished. cli<.:k on the '' Update Fielcl5 ., hull on ro owonwtica//yfi/1 i11 rhe totals. 

Update Fields I 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) 

Do (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspection of Frames 

31.1 ..;.<\ ~C~ '! 

~en;- ' ""• -. . ,..,-s ,, ; ~ ' ., 

t) 

Modification -z.· - . : . ; i. ' 3pe'Go{' i -... 

~ J.!J~ .I .. r~ :: . ··.' \ . .. ,, .. 

' , t '' 

" ' . ' 

' '• 

' 

~ . ,•t' I ., 

;t ' ( 

,,, " l' ~ ~ .. n 

, f1 ' I l' ~ 

d' I''' . } n~' 

• !JI >d f: n~. 

.. :;; !I • ' .. - ;, l;c! (?H ' ., . \. ' 'll I 

t'• \ 

~ IJ ! '( j <1-} i I 

., f I ~ •f '· .il 'H' ,, I• 

The known number of products in compliance: \: um h?r 

Total Costs of compliance tor U.S. fleet: $1 '137,300 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $\\'.:rnull) 

On-Condition Costs:~ 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

Repair 18 . ' ) d' L-_ li 'I 1 

' . :I ' 

8 

/ 
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty cost:;): Modification 

work-hours is for one side of one frame location only. Total mod work-hours will depend on 

the number of frames being modified. Repair work-hours is for one side of one frame 

location only. Total repair work-hours will depend on the number of frames being repaired. 

Parts for the mod and repairs are provided by operators, and costs for these parts cannot be 

determined. 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? · 

YES* 0 NO~ 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? • 

YES* 0 NO I2Sl 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. ' 

YES 0 NO C8:l 

Explanation: 

Intrastate A'riation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? .. 

YES* 0 NO 181 

*Explanation: 

9
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2678 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 10360 Southwest 186th Street in Miami, Florida, as the ‘‘Larcenia J. Bullard Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2678 EH

1 SECTION 1. LARCENIA J. BULLARD POST OFFICE BUILD2 ING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 10360 Southwest 186th Street 

5 in Miami, Florida, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Larcenia J. Bullard Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Larcenia J. Bullard 

11 Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 10, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2678 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostBullard Post Office Building’’. Street in Miami, Florida, as the ‘‘Larcenia J. al Service located at 10360 Southwest 186th
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8, No. 333-58737) of SFX Entertainment, Inc. and in the related
Prospectus of our reports dated: i) February 25, 1999, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of SFX Entertainment, Inc. and ii) October 2,
1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Delsener /
Slater Enterprises, Ltd. and Affiliated Companies, both included in this Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998.


                                                Ernst & Young LLP




New York, New York
March 31, 1999
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC 

 

v. Case No.: 6:20-cv-00572-ADA 

 

GOOGLE LLC 

ORDER 

BE IT REMEMBERED on this day, there was presented to the Court the Motion for Admission 

Pro Hac Vice filed by Alexandra 0. Fellowes (“Applicant”), counsel for WSOU Investments LLC, 

and the Court, having reviewed the motion, enters the following order: 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED, and Applicant 

may appear on behalf of WSOU Investments LLC in the above case. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Applicant, if he/she has not already done so, shall immediately 

tender the amount of $100.00, made payable to: Clerk, U.S. District Court, in compliance with Local 

Court Rule AT-1(f)(2). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the corresponding Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice was 

e-filed, the attorney who filed the Motion on behalf of the Applicant is directed to notify the Applicant 

of this order. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Applicant, pursuant to the Administrative Policies and 

Procedures for Electronic Filing in Civil and Criminal cases in the Western District of Texas, shall 

register as a filing user within 10 days of the date of this Order, if he/she has not previously done so on 

a prior case in this District. 

SIGNED this the 8th day of March, 2022. 

ALAN D ALBRIGHT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 98 Filed 03/08/22 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7006
KEVIN SMITH, a/k/a Bar-None-Royal Blackness, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD ROUSE; TERRELL CANNON, SR.; T. HALL; VAUGHN JACKSON; BOBBY RUTHERFORD; LAURIE BESSINGER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-96-1900-0-23BD) Submitted: January 27, 1998 Decided: April 20, 1998 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (West Supp. 1997). The district court properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West Supp. 1997). Because Appellant did not demonstrate to the district courtthat he had exhausted administrative remedies, the court's dismissal of the action was not an abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm the district court's order but modify it to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice to Appellant's right to refile the action after exhaustion. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01324**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### x 01324\01324_Calc Sheet.doc EPA Technical Review Note 

### x 01324\01324_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 01324\01324_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 01324\01324_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted 

### x 01324\01324_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 01324\01324_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 01324\01324_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 01324\01324_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 01324\01324_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 01324\Certification Statement_ 01324.pdf Plant certification statement 

### x 01324\RE Additional Followup for STEAM Survey 01324.rtf Draft Questions for Follow Up 

### x 01324\Re Followup on Steam Questionnaire_01324.rtf Draft Questions for Follow Up 

### x 01324\RE STEAM survey follow-up for Plant ID 1324.rtf Draft Questions for Follow Up 

### x 01324\RE STEAM survey follow-up for Plant ID 1324_2.rtf Draft Questions for Follow Up



### 01324\Supporting Documentation\Hudson Drawings\Draft Site Plan.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### x 01324\Supporting Documentation\Hudson Drawings\Hudson Schematic of Water

Flow_012908.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. )

) Criminal No. 05-0370 (PLF)

DAVID HOSSEIN SAFAVIAN, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On March 18, 2009, counsel for the defendant wrote a letter to the Court in order

to bring to the Court’s attention a recent potentially relevant court decision. In addition to simply

transmitting the decision, however, counsel made arguments with respect to that decision.

On April 22, 2009, in response to a request by the Court, the parties jointly sent a

letter to the Court identifying relevant pages from earlier filed briefs in support of their respective

positions on the issue of vindictive prosecution. In addition to responding to the Court’s direct

request, however, the parties set forth legal arguments with respect to this issue. On the same

date, April 22, 2009, the government submitted its own letter, citing cases and making arguments

with respect to its reading of the cases and their application to the issues before this Court. On

April 24, 2009, defense counsel sent a letter to the Court responding to the legal arguments

presented by the government in its April 22 letter and citing additional authorities. 

While one of the four letters submitted by counsel was in direct response to a

request from the Court, the other three were not; and even the one that was responsive went well

beyond the Court’s request to identify pages from briefs and cases not previously cited. Counsel
2

are reminded that the Rules of this Court prohibit communications with the Court through letters

rather than through formal filings. See L. Crim. R. 49.1(b) (“Except when requested by a judge,

correspondence shall not be directed by the parties or their attorneys to a judge, nor shall papers

be left with or mailed to a judge for filing”). Furthermore, when a letter is requested in order to

bring to the Court’s attention supplemental authorities, while the letter may provide such

authorities and state the reasons for providing them, it may not include legal argument. Cf. Fed.

R. App. P. 28 (j). In any event, counsel are advised that the letters they have submitted will not

be docketed and, while the Court will in this instance consider the arguments made therein, they

are not a part of the formal record in this case and will not be a part of the record that will

accompany the case to the court of appeals should an appeal prove necessary.

SO ORDERED.

/s/_______________________

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

DATE: May 1, 2009 United States District Judge
Group 4 – Google’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief 

(Civil Case Nos. 6:20-cv-00572-ADA, 6:20-cv-00581-ADA, and 6:20-cv-00582-ADA) 

EXHIBIT #9 

Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-9 Filed 02/12/21 Page 1 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-9 Filed 02/12/21 Page 2 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-9 Filed 02/12/21 Page 3 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-9 Filed 02/12/21 Page 4 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-9 Filed 02/12/21 Page 5 of 5
July 27, 2017



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IFS2I CONSULTING LLC AND IFS2I FRANCE , Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 00407

- CV V.
GOLDVEIN, S.A. , Appellee

________________________________ T oday the Court heard appellants’ motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on February 20, 2015. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by r eason of this appeal be paid by appellant s , IFS2I Consulting LLC and IFS2I France. We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6289

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DUVALL HUCKS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District 

Judge. (8:95-cr-00267-AW-7)

Submitted: September 7, 2016 Decided: September 14, 2016

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Duvall Hucks, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Duvall Hucks appeals the district court’s order denying his 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Hucks, No. 8:95-cr-00267-AW-7 (D. Md. Feb. 2, 2016). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

PATRICIA WISHER, 

Defendant Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

Plaintiff Below, 

Appellee. 

§ 

§ No. 563, 2016 

§ 

§ 

§ Court Below—Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 1506021466 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Submitted: April 12, 2017 

Decided: May 9, 2017 

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 

O R D E R

This 9th day of May 2017, upon consideration of the appellant’s Supreme 

Court Rule 26(c) brief, the State’s response, and the record below, it appears to the 

Court that: 

(1) In November 2015, a New Castle County grand jury indicted the 

appellant, Patricia Wisher, for Assault in the Second Degree. On October 31, 2016, 

Wisher pled guilty to the lesser included offense of Assault in the Third Degree. The 

Superior Court sentenced Wisher to one year of Level V incarceration. This is 

Wisher’s direct appeal. 

(2) On appeal, Wisher’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and a motion to 

withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c). Counsel asserts that, based upon a 
2

complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable 

issues. Counsel informed Wisher of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided 

Wisher with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. 

(3) Counsel also informed Wisher of her right to identify any points she 

wished this Court to consider on appeal. Wisher has not raised any issues for this 

Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and has 

moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 

(4) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 

under Rule 26(c), this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a 

conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii) 

conduct its own review of the record and determine whether the appeal is so totally 

devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an 

adversary presentation.1

(5) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 

Wisher’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 

issue. We also are satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine 

the record and the law and has properly determined that Wisher could not raise a 

meritorious claim in this appeal. 

 

1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 
3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Justice
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-00542-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. 8,249,446, on November 30, 2020. See IPR2021-00228. 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-00542-ADA Document 35 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-00542-ADA Document 35 Filed 12/14/20 Page 2 of 2