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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000096988
<NAME> MARLTON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       5,549,259
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,418,728
<ALLOWANCES>                                   242,773
<INVENTORY>                                  5,094,091
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,813,633
<PP&E>                                       5,165,308
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,322,045
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,309,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,482,055
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    21,824,500
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,123,138
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,309,049
<SALES>                                     24,023,099
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,023,099
<CGS>                                       17,209,149
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,209,149
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,371
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,295,028
<INCOME-TAX>                                   510,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            785,028
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   785,028
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14


</TABLE>
1378288

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

VOXER, INC. and VOXER IP LLC,

Plaintiffs.,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC. and INSTAGRAM LLC,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00011 

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER 

VENUE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

To the extent the Court would find it beneficial and feasible under current circumstances, 

Defendants Facebook, Inc and Instagram LLC, pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h), respectfully 

request an oral telephonic hearing on its Motion to Transfer Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) 

[Dkt. No. 29]. Plaintiffs Voxer, Inc and Voxer IP LLC do not oppose this request.

Case 1:20-cv-00655-ADA Document 43 Filed 03/24/20 Page 1 of 3
1

1378288

Dated: March 24 , 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s Michael E. Jones

Michael E. Jones

SBN: 10929400

Patrick C. Clutter

SBN: 24036374

POTTER MINTON, PC

110 North College, Suite 500

Tyler, Texas 75702

Tel: 903-597-8311

Fax: 903-593-0845

mikejones@potterminton.com

patrickclutter@potterminton.com

Robert A. Van Nest

rvannest@keker.com

Christa M. Anderson

canderson@keker.com

David J. Silbert

dsilbert@keker.com

Eugene M. Paine

epaige@keker.com

Matthew W. Werdegar

mwerdegar@keker.com

Paven Malhotra

pmalhotra@keker.com

Philip J. Tassin

ptassin@keker.com

Puja V. Parikh

pparikh@keker.com

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP

633 Battery Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

Tel: 415-391-5400

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS 

FACEBOOK, INC. and INSTAGRAM LLC

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that counsel for Defendants conferred with counsel for Plaintiff on March 23, 

2020 regarding the foregoing Request. Plaintiff’s counsel consented to the requested relief.

/s/ Michael E. Jones

Michael E. Jones

Case 1:20-cv-00655-ADA Document 43 Filed 03/24/20 Page 2 of 3
2

1378288

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service are 

being served with a copy of this document via electronic mail on March 24, 2020.

/s/ Michael E. Jones

Michael E. Jones

Case 1:20-cv-00655-ADA Document 43 Filed 03/24/20 Page 3 of 3
Appellant asks that this court order the trial court to forward his notice of appeal to the court of criminal 1

appeals. Even if such an order would be effective, it would not accomplish Appellant's purpose. A request for

NO. 12-08-00447-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

HENRY T. MADDOX, § APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant was convicted of the

offense of aggravated robbery, and punishment was imposed in open court on August 6, 2008.

Consequently, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due on September 5, 2008. See TEX. R. APP. P.

26.2(a)(1). However, Appellant filed his notice of appeal on October 30, 2008. 

Appellant’s October 30, 2008 notice of appeal is untimely, which leaves us without

jurisdiction over the appeal. On November 10, 2008, this court notified Appellant that there was no

notice of appeal filed within the time allowed by rule 26.2 and there was no timely motion for an

extension of time to file the notice of appeal as permitted by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

26.3. Appellant was further informed that the appeal would be dismissed unless, on or before

November 20, 2008, the information in the appeal was amended to show the jurisdiction of this

court. Appellant responded that his notice of appeal was intended for the court of criminal appeals

and that he was seeking a writ of habeas corpus, not a direct appeal. Therefore, he does not oppose

the dismissal. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

1
postconviction habeas relief in a felony case can be made only by filing an application in compliance with the provisions

of article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. A notice of appeal is not the same as an application for writ

of habeas corpus. 

2

Opinion delivered November 26, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 59 Filed 11/09/20 Page 1 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 59 Filed 11/09/20 Page 2 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 59 Filed 11/09/20 Page 3 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 59 Filed 11/09/20 Page 4 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 59 Filed 11/09/20 Page 5 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 59 Filed 11/09/20 Page 6 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 59 Filed 11/09/20 Page 7 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 59 Filed 11/09/20 Page 8 of 8
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

# AGENCY:

Consumer Product Safety Commission.

# TIME AND DATE:

Wednesday, October 25, 2000, 2:00 p.m.

# LOCATION:

Room 410, East West Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

# STATUS:

Closed to the Public.

# Matter to be Considered:

 

# Compliance Status Report:

The staff will brief the Commission on the status of various compliance matters. For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-0709.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Sayde E. Dunn, Office of the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504-0800.

Dated: October 12, 2000.

Sayde E. Dunn,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-26782 Filed 10-13-00; 3:03 pm]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
Exhibit 99.1

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 Quarterly Report of Pathmark Stores, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 3, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James L. Donald, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  |  |  | /s/JAMES L. DONALDName: James L. Donald
Title:Chairman, President and
          Chief Executive Officer
| |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | Date:  September 16, 2002                                                                              

---

QuickLinks
(LOGO)

February 27,1998

As of and for the year ended December 31, 1997,  LIFE Financial  Corporation has
complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth
in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of America's  UNIFORM  SINGLE  ATTESTATION
PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE  BANKERS.  As of and for this same period,  LIFE  Financial
Corporation had in effect a fidelity bond in the amount of $2,000,000 and errors
and omissions policy in the amount of $1,000,000. 
                                                     

/s/Daniel L. Perl
Daniel L. Perl 
President and Chief Executive 
Officer

/s/L. Bruce Mills
L. Bruce Mills
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer

/s/Steven Sandoval
Steven Sandoval
Vice President
#### BEGLEY et al. v. FERRA et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 11, 1951.

Napier & Napier, Hazard, for appellants.

Hiram H. Owens, Barbourville, Sylvester Little, London, for appellees.

CLAY, Commissioner.

This is a suit on an injunction bond. The trial court directed a verdict for ap-pellees on the ground that appellants had failed to prove any damages.

Appellees filed the original suit June 7, 1946, asserting title to land in Perry •County, and seeking to enjoin appellants from mining coal thereon. A restraining order was issued which remained in effect 68 days, when it was dissolved. On appeal to’ this Court, the judgment, favorable to appellants, was affirmed. Farra v. Begley, 306 Ky. 52, 206 S.W.2d 46.

No one questions appellants’ right to recover (up to the face amount of the ■bond) such pecuniary losses as they suffered as a direct result of the issuance of the restraining order. However, the burden was on them te> prove their damages, and they failed to do so. Actually the evidence shows appellants sold the coal on their land, after the dissolution of the restraining order, at a higher price and profit than they were realizing from their mining operations prior to the time they were restrained.

The case is similar to that of Elkhorn Coal Company v. Justice, 214 Ky. 451, 283 S.W. 399, wherein the plaintiff, suing on an injunction bond, had been restrained from cutting and marketing timber on his property for four years. The Court found that since the plaintiff still had his timber and had not established that its value had decreased while the injunction was in effect, he had shown no loss. It is significant that in the present case appellants’ counsel has failed to state in his brief the amount of damages appellants sustained. If the claimants are unable to estimate what these were, if any, we cannot understand how a jury could do so.

Appellants also sought to recover, in addition to general damages, an attorney’s fee and the cost of making a *469survey in the case. These expenses are not recoverable because appellants failed to show they were incurred in defending the injunction phase of the case. Where the right to an injunction is determined solely by a decision on the merits, attorneys’ fees and the cost of preparing the defense are expenses incurred in defending the principal cause of action, and are not recoverable on the injunction bond. See Citizens’ Trust & Guaranty Co. v. Ohio Valley Tie Co., 138 Ky. 421, 128 S.W. 317, and the Elkhorn Coal Company case, 214 Ky. 451, 283 S.W. 399, above discussed.

Other questions are raised by appellants, but our conclusion makes it unnecessary to discuss them. The trial court properly directed a verdict for appellees.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of co-CEOs and CAO


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Canadian Superior Energy Inc. (the
“Registrant”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with
the Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Leif Snethun, as Chief
Operating Officer of the Registrant and Robb D. Thompson, as Chief Financial
Officer of the Registrant, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of
his knowledge, 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 results of operations of the
Registrant.








/s/  Leif Snethun


Name:   Leif
Snethun


Title:      Chief
Operating Officer


Date:    
April 30, 2009








/s/  Robb D. Thompson


Name:    Robb
D. Thompson


Title:
      Chief Financial Officer


Date:      April
30, 2009





This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of §18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
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.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00571-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00572-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00573-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00575-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00576-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00579-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00580-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00583-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00584-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00585-ADA

ORDER GRANTING OPPOSED MOTION TO MODIFY THE PROTECTIVE ORDER

Having considered Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC’s Opposed Motion to Modify the 

Protective Order, the Court finds the motion should be GRANTED. The Court will modify the Protective 

Oder as follows: 

1. Section 13 will be modified to strike the following language: 

“Without limitation, this prohibition extends to Protected Material (including copies) in 

physical and electronic form. The viewing of Protected Material through electronic means 

outside the territorial limits of the United States of America is similarly prohibited. 

Notwithstanding this prohibition, Protected Material, exclusive of material designated 

RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL ‐ SOURCE CODE, and to the extent otherwise 

permitted by law, may be taken outside the territorial limits of the United States if it is 

reasonably necessary for a deposition taken in a foreign country. The restrictions 

contained within this paragraph may be amended through the consent of the Producing 

Party to the extent that such agreed to procedures conform with applicable export control 

laws and regulation.”

2. Section 10(a) will be modified to state, in relevant part: “Additionally, except as provided 

in paragraph 10(o) below, the stand-alone computers may only be located [in Austin, Texas] at 

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 53-1 Filed 09/23/21 Page 1 of 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

Page

-2-

the offices of the Producing Party’s outside counsel [or a location in Austin selected by such 

outside counsel.]”

3. Section 10(o) will be modified to state, in relevant part: 

A Producing Party’s Source Code Material may only be transported by the Receiving 

Party at the direction of a person authorized under paragraph 10(f) above to another person 

authorized under paragraph 10(f) above, and on paper via hand carry (including via a hand 

carry courier service), [Federal Express, or other similarly reliable courier].

It is SO ORDERED.

Date: 

Presiding Judge

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 53-1 Filed 09/23/21 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7444
JOEL DEAN GILLILAND, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-405) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joel Dean Gilliland, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Ann Bullock Walker, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Gilliland v. Angelone , No. CA-97-405 (E.D. Va. Sept. 9, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
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 Quarterly Report of Tektronix, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended February 28, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
H. Wills, President and 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 the best of 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.

Dated:  April 12, 2004

/s/ RICHARD H. WILLS
-------------------------------------
Richard H. Wills
President and Chief Executive Officer
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency

Docket Index for [EPA - R09 - OAR - 201 4 - 0 746 ] Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Approval, Disapproval, and Limited Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits Category I. State Implementation Plan Revision Submittals and Related Materials I

- A SIP submittal letter from CARB dated May 8, 2001 I

- B Monterey Bay Staff Report dated December 13, 2000 I

- C Rule 200 amended on December 13, 2000 I

- D Rule 208 amended on December 13, 2000 I

- E SIP submittal letter from CARB dated May 31, 2001 I

- F Monterey Bay Staff Report dated March 21, 2001 I

- G Rule 204 amended on March 21, 2001 I

- H Rule 206 amended on March 21, 2001 I

- I SIP submittal letter from CARB dated December 12, 2002 I

- J Monterey Bay Staff Report dated October 16, 2002 I

- K Rule 203 amended on October 16, 2002 I

- L Rule 212 amended on October 16, 2002 I

- M SIP submittal letter from CARB dated May 12, 2011 I

- N Monterey Bay Staff Report dated April 20, 2011 I

- O Rule 207 amended on April 20, 2011 Category II . Federal Register Notices Cited in the Proposed Rule 1 II

- A 52 FR 26148, dated July 13, 1987 II

- B 64 FR 35577, dated July 1, 1999 II

- C 65 FR 5433, dated February 4, 2000 Category III. Other Relevant Documents III

- A TSD for NPRM for Monterey Bay Rule Revisions, dated September 29, 2014 III

- B MBUAPCD SIP Rule 200, Permits Required , SIP approved July 1, 1999 III

- C MBUAPCD SIP Rule 204, Cancellation of Applications , SIP approved July 1, 1999 III

- D MBUAPCD SIP Rule 206, Standards for Granting Applications , SIP approved July 13,

1 All notices dated after 1994 are available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR All other Federal Register notices listed are provided in the electronic docket.2

1987 III

- E MBUAPCD SIP Rule 207, Review of New or Modified Sources , SIP appro ved February 4, 2000 III

- F MBUAPCD SIP Rule 208, Standards for Granting Permits to Operate , SIP approved July 13, 1987 III

- G MBUAPCD SIP Rule 212, Public Availability of Emission Data , SIP approved July 13, 1987
I V. EPA Rulemaking Documents IV

- A Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking , dated 10

- 15

- 14 IV

- B Federal Register Notice of Final Rulemaking Note: Items in Red font have been added to the Index si nce the proposed rulemaking action.
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 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  fairly  presents  in  all  material  respects  the financial
condition  and  results  of  operations  of  National  Parking  Systems,  Inc.

May 3, 2005
--------------

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

<PAGE>