alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

 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. 

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) 

INC., AND ZTE (TX), INC. 

Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-487-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-488-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-489-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-490-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-491-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-492-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-493-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-494-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-495-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-496-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-497-ADA 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

 

RESPONSE REGARDING NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY 

 The arguments contained in ZTE’s “Notice of Supplemental Authority” are improper 

briefing, filed without leave, and should be stricken or ignored. ZTE’s pretext for filing a new brief 

without leave is unpersuasive. In re Andra does not represent a change in law. See In re Andra 

Group LLP, Case 20-2009 (Dkt. No. 41, Order) (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2021). Rather, it applies existing 

law to the specific facts of a specific case. ZTE already had full opportunity to argue the law 

relating to agency and ratification to the facts of this case, which differ from In re Andra. ZTE’s 

belated attempt to re-brief these issues should be rejected. 

 To the extent this Court is taking “notice” of In re Andra, however, it should take notice 

that the District Court dismissed only the Non-Store Defendants. See ZTE’s Notice, Ex. A *3-4. It 

did not dismiss the “Stores” defendant because it found venue was proper against that defendant. 

Id. This, of course, contradicts ZTE’s incorrect argument, raised for the first time during the 

hearing on its motion, that if venue is improper as to any defendant, a court must dismiss all

defendants. 

Case 6:20-cv-00494-ADA Document 100 Filed 08/05/21 Page 1 of 2
2 

Therefore, WSOU respectfully requests that the Court strike ZTE’s “notice” because it is 

not a notice. Rather, it is more briefing filed without leave, filed without even consulting WSOU, 

and is argumentative. 

Dated: August 5, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Ryan Loveless 

James L. Etheridge 

Texas Bar No. 24059147 

Ryan S. Loveless 

Texas Bar No. 24036997 

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 

Mark D. Siegmund 

State Bar No. 24117055 

mark@waltfairpllc.com 

Law Firm of Walt, Fair PLLC. 

1508 North Valley Mills Drive 

Waco, Texas 76710 

Telephone: (254) 772-6400 

Facsimile: (254) 772-6432 

 

Counsel for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or delivered electronically 

via the U.S. District Court [LIVE]-Document Filing System to all counsel of record August 5, 

2021. 

/s/ Ryan Loveless 

Ryan S. Loveless 

Case 6:20-cv-00494-ADA Document 100 Filed 08/05/21 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2  
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 Sequa Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Howard M. Leitner, 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 result of operations of the Company.     
/s/ Howard M. Leitner  
Howard M. Leitner  
Chief Financial Officer  
August 14, 2003
exv10w48



 






Exhibit 10.48




	 	 	 
	 

	 	November 29, 2005






Mr. Ray M. Robinson

3445 Peachtree Rd. N.E.

Suite 175

Atlanta, GA 30326




Dear Ray:




          This will confirm the following agreement relating to the deferral of your director’s fees in
2006.



          1. All director’s fees and retainers (“Fees”) payable to you in connection with your service
on the boards of directors (including committees of such boards) of AMR Corporation and American
Airlines, Inc. for the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006, will be deferred and paid
to you in accordance with this letter agreement.



          2. Interest will be accrued on the amounts to be paid on a deferred basis pursuant to
paragraph 1 above, from the date such fees would otherwise have been paid to the date actually
paid, at the prime rate which The Chase Manhattan Bank (National Association) from time to time
charges in New York for 90-day loans to responsible commercial borrowers, such interest to be
compounded monthly.



          3. The total amount to be paid on a deferred basis plus the aggregate amount of interest
accrued thereon will be paid to you in a lump sum distribution on the 30th business day
after the date when you cease to be a Director of AMR Corporation.



          4. In the event of your death, the cash payment contemplated by paragraph 3 will be made to
Arlane Robinson on the 30th business day following the date of your death.



 









 





          If the foregoing is satisfactory to you, please indicate by signing one of the
originals (two are enclosed) and returning it to me.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Very truly yours,	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Charles D. MarLett

Corporate Secretary	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Accepted and agreed:
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Ray M. Robinson
 


	 	 
	 	 
	Ray M. Robinson
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	12/01/2005
 


	 	 
	 	 
	Date
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6460

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EBONY SHABAKA SHANIQUE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00214-D-1)

Submitted: October 22, 2020 Decided: October 27, 2020

Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ebony Shabaka Shanique, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ebony Shabaka Shanique appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 

motion seeking a sentence reduction pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 

115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. We have reviewed the record and find that the court

did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce Shanique’s sentence. Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Shanique, No. 5:05-cr00214-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 3, 2020). Shanique’s motion for the appointment of counsel is 

denied. 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
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 16.1

                           SELLERS & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

          5230 S 500 W                    2050 W. WARM SPRINGS ROAD, #1522
          OGDEN, UTAH 84405               HENDERSON, NEVADA 89014
          (801) 476-0270                  (702) 547-6661
                                          FACSIMILE: (702) 547-6691


September 20, 2002


Office of the Chief Accountant
SECPS Letter Files
Securities and Exchange Commission
Mail Stop 9-5
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549


Ladies and Gentlemen:

We were previously principal accountants for The Lionshare Group, Inc. and,
under the date of October 4, 2002, we reported on the financial statements of
The Lionshare Group, Inc. as of and for the years ended June 30, 2001 and June
30, 2000.  On May 28, 2002, our appointment as principal accountants was
terminated.  We have read The Lionshare Group, Inc.'s statements included under
Item 4 of its Form 8-K dated May 28, 2002, and we agree with such statements
made regarding our firm.

Very truly yours,

 /s/ Sellers & Associates, P.C.
-------------------------------
Sellers & Associates, P.C.




<PAGE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2958 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide certain port authorities, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2013 

Mr. NADLER (for himself, Ms. HAHN, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. CAPUANO, Ms. MOORE, Mr. SCHIFF, Mrs. 

CAPPS, Mr. PALLONE, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. HONDA, Mr. MORAN, 

Mr. ISRAEL, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. LOWENTHAL, and Mr. HOLT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide certain 

port authorities, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Clean Ports Act of 

5 2013’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2958 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY TO PORT FACILITIES. 

2 Section 14501(c) of title 49, United States Code, is 

3 amended— 

4 (1) in paragraph (2)(A)— 

5 (A) by striking ‘‘or’’ after ‘‘cargo,’’; and 

6 (B) by inserting before the semicolon the 

7 following: ‘‘, or the authority of a State, polit8 ical subdivision of a State, or political authority 

9 of 2 or more States to adopt requirements for 

10 motor carriers and commercial motor vehicles 

11 providing services at port facilities that are rea12 sonably related to the reduction of environ13 mental pollution, traffic congestion, the im14 provement of highway safety, or the efficient 

15 utilization of port facilities, if adoption or en16 forcement of such requirements does not con17 flict with any other applicable Federal law or 

18 regulation’’; and 

19 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

20 ‘‘(6) CLARIFICATION FOR PARAGRAPH (2).— 

21 ‘‘(A) DEFINITION OF PORT FACILITIES.— 

22 For purposes of paragraph (2)(A), the term 

23 ‘port facilities’ means all port facilities for 

24 coastwise, intercoastal, inland waterways, and 

25 Great Lakes shipping and overseas shipping, in26 cluding, wharves, piers, sheds, warehouses, terVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:56 Aug 07, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2958.IH H2958

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2958 IH

1 minals, yards, docks, control towers, container 

2 equipment, maintenance buildings, container 

3 freight stations and port equipment, including 

4 harbor craft, cranes, and straddle carriers. 

5 ‘‘(B) APPLICABILITY OF CLEAN AIR ACT.— 

6 Nothing in paragraph (1) shall limit the rights 

7 reserved to any State or a political subdivision 

8 thereof under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

9 7401 et seq.).’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
H. R. 3027 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 442 Miller 

Valley Road in Prescott, Arizona, as the ‘‘Barry M. Goldwater Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. BARRY M. GOLDWATER POST OFFICE. 

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

Service located at 442 Miller Valley Road in Prescott, Arizona, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Barry M. Goldwater Post 

Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Barry M. Goldwater Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### FOREMAN v. STATE.

No. 26888.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 17, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted as a second offender of the offense of unlawfully operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $100.

■ The indictment and all matters of procedure appear regular. The record is- before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is. presented for review. .

The judgment is therefore affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99.1

The undersigned officer of StockerYale, Inc.(the "Company") hereby certifies that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solelypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 

| Date: May 15, 2003Name:/s/ Mark W. Blodgett                        Mark W. Blodgett                                                         Title:Chairman andChief Executive Officer	     |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### The State, ex rel. Rosebrock, Appellee, *v.*County Board of Education of Henry County, Appellant. The State, ex rel. Sonnenberg, Appellee, *v.*County Board of Education of Henry County, Appellant.

(Nos. 27809 and 27810

Decided April 17, 1940.)

*508
      *Mr. Theo. Daman*and *Mr. P. G. Prentiss,*for appellees.

*Mr. A. P. Stalter, Mr. F. J. Stalter*and *Messrs. Knepper, White S Dempsey,*for appellant.

By the Court.

The underlying legal questions represented in these appeals were decided in *State, ex rel. Adsmond,*v. *Board of Education,*135 Ohio St., 383, 21 N. E. (2d), 99, and succeeding pages.

There is ample evidence in the record to support the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals and its conclusions of law are in conformity with the former pronouncements by this court.

The judgments are therefore affirmed.

*Judgments affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Michael R. Stewart, certify that:

1.
I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of MELA Sciences, Inc.;

2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report;

3.
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)
designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed
under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
the financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation;

d)
disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

4.
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operations of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

b)
any fraud whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s
internal control over financial reporting.



| |                                          
| | -----------------------------------------
| | /s/
    Michael R. Stewart               
| | Michael
    R. Stewart                   
| | President
    and Chief Executive Officer
| | (Principal
    Executive Officer)        

Date:
April 28, 2015
1 

From: McCaskill, William L. [mailto:Larry.McCaskill@alcoa.com] 

Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:28 AM 

To: Putney, David 

Cc: Shroup, Michael; Palazzolo, Michael A.; Van Der Meyden, Henk 

Subject: PMACT ICR TEST REPORT 

David, 

Attached is the referenced report and supporting information for the testing that was conducted at the

Alcoa – Mt Holly facility in April. I will also be forwarding a hard copy of the report to you in the regular 

mail. 

Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. 

Larry McCaskill

Sr Air Compliance Specialist

ALCOA - Mt Holly

FAX 843-572-5378

VOICE 843-572-5246

MOBILE 704-773-1077

INTERNET Larry . McCaskill @ Alcoa . com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       8,300,622
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,351,222
<ALLOWANCES>                                   142,549
<INVENTORY>                                 15,219,109
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,104,376
<PP&E>                                       4,921,698
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,549,767
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              62,402,181
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,197,373
<BONDS>                                     11,291,183
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,259
<OTHER-SE>                                  44,458,702
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                62,402,181
<SALES>                                     26,877,396
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,265,698
<CGS>                                       15,477,012
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,477,012
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,672,606
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                41,112
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             719,246
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,116,080
<INCOME-TAX>                                   704,394
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,411,686
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,411,686
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31


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

No. 22906.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 14, 1944.

Aubrey Davee, of Brady, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for “procuring” under Art. 525, P.C. 1925, and punishment assessed at a fine of $100 and 60 days in jail.

The statute referred to in so far as applicable here reads as follows r

> “Whoever shall invite, solicit, procure, allure or use any means in alluring or procuring any female to visit and be at any particular house, room or place for the purpose of meeting and having unlawful sexual intercourse with any male person, or to take part or in any way participate in any immoral conduct with men or women, * * * shall be fined not less than fifty nor more than two hundred dollars and be confined in jail not less than one nor more than six months.”

The information, omitting formal parts, alleges that appellant:—

> “* * * ¿[¡d 1⁄8611 and there unlawfully, participate in the immoral conduct betwee-C. W. Parker and Mable Watkins by taking the said C. W. Parker to the said Mable Watkins and transporting both the said C. W. Parker and the said Mable Watkins to Richards Park for the purpose of engaging in Immoral conduct and did then and there bring about and procure unlawful *sexial*intercourse between the said C. W. Parker and said Mable Watkins. * * *”

Appellant moved to quash the information on the ground that it charged no offense. He calls attention to the misspelling of the word “sexual.” Under Art. 412, C.C.P., and authorities cited in Note 3, Vernon’s Tex.C.C.P., Vol. 1, the error in spelling was not fatal. See also Graham v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 14, 46 S.W.2d 709; Jones v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 355, 61 S.W.2d 1003.

The serious question regarding the information and complaint is that nowhere therein appears an averment that one of the parties involved in the immoral conduct was a “female” and the other a “male.” If resort to the evidence could be had to supplement the State’s pleading the defect could be remedied, but this cannot be done. The complaint and information must *285stand or fall upon their own averments. Authorities cited under Wilson’s Tex.Cr. Forms, No. 257, and the form there suggested as well as under Art. 519, P.C., for “pandering” will be sufficient guide for the pleading if further prosecution is pursued.

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.