alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 NO. 6:20-cv-571-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

Please take notice that attorney Brian M. Koide of the law firm ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, 

PLLC appears as counsel of record for Plaintiff Uniloc 2017. Mr. Koide hereby requests that all 

notices required to be given, and all papers required to be served in the above-entitled and 

numbered cause, be copied to and served upon him.

Dated: November 2, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brian M. Koide

Brian M. Koide 

Virginia Bar No. 46,329

ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324

Southlake, Texas 76092

Telephone: (703) 565-2852

Facsimile: (817) 887-5950 

brian@etheridgelaw.com

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 28 Filed 11/02/20 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record via the 

Court's CM/ECF electronic filing system in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure on November 2, 2020.

/s/ Brian M. Koide

Brian M. Koide

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 28 Filed 11/02/20 Page 2 of 2
JOHN L. HILL Attorney General 

# The Attorney General of Texas September 12, 1978

Honorable Hal H.Hood Commissioner Firemen’s Pension Commission Sam Houston Building Austin, Texas 78701 Dear Mr.Hood: Opinion No. H-1241 Re: Whether certain contributions can be refunded to a retired fireman.

Youhave requested our opinion regarding whether certain contributions maybe refunded to aretired fireman. Youstate that aparticular fireman in Corpus Christi became disabled andbegan drawing sick leave benefits onMay 2, 1971. OnOctober 12,1971,payment for sick leave was terminated, and he was granted a disability pension, retroactive to May 2, the initial date of disability. Youask whether he isentitled to a refund for,compulsory pension deductions withheld from his sick leave payments from May2to October 12. Wenote that, under section 9 of article 6243e, V.T.C.S., a fireman is not prohibited from receiving both sick leave pay and disability benefits for the same period. See Attorney General Opinion C-460 (1965). Section lOA of article 6243e, applicable to Corpus Christi, provides that the employing city

shall deduct an amount equal to noless than three per cent (3%) nor more than six per cent (6%) from the monthly salary or compensation of each participating member fireman. (Emphasis added). We have previously held that payment for sick leave constitutes payment of “salary.” Attorney General Opinion H-860 (1976). Since the statute provides no exception for sick leave pay, we believe that the required pension contribution mustbe withheld therefrom. We are supported in this view by other portions of article 6243e. Sections lOA and lOA- provide for refund of a fireman’s contributions to the pension fund under certain conditions: 1) he leaves active service for a reason other than those for which pension benefits wilI accrue; and 2) a majority of the Fund’s participating members have previously approved a

p. 4942Honorable Hal H.Hood - Page 2 (H-1241)

refund policy. A disability, whether or not service-related, is one “for which pension benefits will accrue” under sections 7 and 7A. Thus, the statute, while specifically authorizing refunds of contributions where pension benefits are not available, implies that refunds are not compatible with the payment of such benefits. Accordingly, it is our opinion that, in the situation you describe, the fireman is not entitled to a refund of pension contributions for the period during which.he waspaid for sick leave. SUMMARY

Afireman entitled to adisability pension may not receive a refund of compulsory pension contributions withheld for a period during which heispaid sick leave.

APPROVED:

C.ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee jsn

p. 4943
**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 Pathmark Stores, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 5, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John T. Standley, 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, 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, as amended; and |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
| A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.                                         |

 

 

 

|   |       |     | **/s/ John T. Standley**    |
|--------|------------|----------|-----------------------------|
|   | **Name:**  |     | **John T. Standley**        |
|   | **Title:** | * * | *Chief Executive Officer*** |
|   | **Date:**  |     | June 13, 2007               |
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000590 30-AUG-2017 08:37 AM
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 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF WSOU’S OPPOSED MOTION TO MODIFY THE 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

 Before the Court is Plaintiff WSOU’s Opposed Motion to Modify the Protective Order and 

Google LLC’s Opposition to same. After consideration of said briefing, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff’s Motion is hereby DENIED in its entirety. 

SIGNED on this day of , 2021. 

 

 

 ALAN D. ALBRIGHT 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 54-1 Filed 09/24/21 Page 1 of 1
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDDK.

The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDDK.                    

*Date:*                         November 29-December 1, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         6:00 pm to 12:00 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Building 5, Room 127, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ira W. Levin, PhD, Acting Director, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive, and Kidney Diseases, NIH, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.                     

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 11, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-26871  Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 10.19


    
      

    

    
      Exhibit
        10.19

      


      SECOND
        AMENDMENT TO THE 

      SENIOR
        MANAGEMENT VOLUNTARY DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

      


      


      WHEREAS,
        Insituform
        Technologies, Inc. maintains deferred compensation plan known as the Senior
        Management Voluntary Deferred Compensation Plan (“Plan”); and

      


      WHEREAS,
        the Plan
        may be amended pursuant to Section 9.1 of the Plan; and

      


      WHEREAS,
        it is
        deemed necessary and desirable to amend the Plan to comply with the transition
        rules under Internal Revenue Code § 409A as set forth in Q&A-21(a) of Notice
        2005-1, 2005-2 IRB 274 12/20/2004.

      


      NOW
        THEREFORE, THE
        PLAN is hereby amended as follows:

      


      
        	
                1.

              	
                By
                  adding the
                  following new Section 3.2 c):

              


      

      


      c) Deferral
        Commitment for Services Performed on or Before December 31,
        2005.
        Notwithstanding
        the
        foregoing, with respect to deferrals that relate all or in part to services
        performed on or before December 31, 2005, elections may be made on or before
        March 15, 2005 provided that the amounts to which such election relate have
        not
        been paid or become payable at the time of the election and the elections
        are
        made in accordance with Section 3.2.

      


      This
        amendment
        shall be known as the Second Amendment to Senior Management Voluntary Deferral
        Compensation Plan (“Second Amendment”) and shall be effective as of January 1,
        2005.

      


      IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF,
        the Insituform Technologies, Inc. Board of Directors has caused this Second
        Amendment to be executed in the name of and on behalf of Insituform
        Technologies, Inc. this 21st day of December, 2005.

      


      
        	
                 

              	
                INSITUFORM
                  TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

              
	 	 
	
                 

              	
                By: 
                  /s/
                  David
                  F.
                  Morris                              
                  

              
	 	 
	
                 

              	
                Title:Vice
                  President
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No. 333-58649 andNo. 333-58899) on Form S-8 of Midwest Banc Holdings, Inc. of our report dated January 17, 2003, exceptfor Note 28, which is as of April 14, 2003, on the consolidated statements of income, stockholders’equity, and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2002 which report is incorporated byreference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Midwest Banc Holdings, Inc. for the year endedDecember 31, 2004.
 
Crowe Chizek and Company LLC
Oak Brook, Illinois
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 #11 

Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-11 Filed 02/12/21 Page 1 of 4
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-11 Filed 02/12/21 Page 2 of 4
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-11 Filed 02/12/21 Page 3 of 4
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-11 Filed 02/12/21 Page 4 of 4
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Rivera, Also Known as Ivan Rivera, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), both rendered March 14, 1986, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree, burglary in the second degree and sexual abuse in the first degree (four counts) under indictment No. 85-00878, upon a jury verdict, and burglary in the second degree (two counts), grand larceny in the third degree (two counts), and criminal mischief in the fourth degree (two counts) under indictment No. 85-00879, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We find no merit to the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred by refusing his request to charge sexual abuse in the third degree as a lesser included offense of sexual abuse in the first degree. To establish entitlement to a lesser included offense charge, the defendant must show, in pertinent part, that "there is a reasonable view of [the] evidence [in the particular case that] would support a finding that [he] commit[ted] the lesser offense [but] not * * * the greater” *(People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61, 64). "If there is no reasonable view of the evidence which would support such a finding, the court may not submit such lesser offense” (CPL 300.50 [1]). In the case at bar, the trial court properly concluded that there was no reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant could have been guilty of third degree, but not first degree, sexual abuse *(see, People v Mazzu,*134 AD2d 890, 891).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]), or without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
AAM-11-415-E 

August 22, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10337 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0841 

Mr. John Tomaino 

American Helicopters 

612 West Kearney Boulevard 

Fresno, CA 93706 

Dear Mr. Tomaino: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated August 3, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of American Helicopters for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow American Helicopters, which 

is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees 

under one testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to American Helicopters. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into 

one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant American Helicopters an exemption from part 120 to the 

extent necessary to allow American Helicopters, which is operating under separate parts of 

the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to 

the conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of American Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol 

regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the American Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on August 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
Exhibit 32.1
  1.
    
    The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2010, to which this
Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 In Witness Whereof
 /s/ Bernard A. Hausen

Bernard A. Hausen, M.D., Ph.D.
    
    /s/ Robert Y. Newell

Robert Y. NewellChief Executive Officer
    
    Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32



Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Superior
Uniform Group, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on their knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ Michael Benstock     
|Michael Benstock         
|Chief Executive Officer  
|                         
|/s/ Andrew D. Demott, Jr.
|Andrew D. Demott, Jr.    
|Chief Financial Officer  



Date: August 2, 2005
EXHIBIT 12

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109-12 Filed 10/14/22 Page 1 of 4
Page 1 of 2

MOTION TO DISMISS

In the Interest of Sofia Elena Cantu and Maya Isabella Cantu, Children

NO. 2018-CI-18856

IN THE INTEREST OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

§

SOFIA ELENA CANTU §

AND MAYA ISABELLA CANTU § 150TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

§

CHILDREN § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Now come RODRIGO DAVID CANTU, movant herein, and files this Motion for

Dismissal with Prejudice, dismissing RODRIGO DAVID CANTU’S Motion for 

Enforcement and other affirmative pleadings on file herein, respectfully showing the Court 

as follows:

I.

RODRIGO DAVID CANTU moves this Court to dismiss with prejudice this suit 

and all claims that were asserted by RODRIGO DAVID CANTU against SANDRA 

GUERRA on the grounds that the parties have compromised and settled the claims and 

disputes related to RODRIGO DAVID CANTU’S pleadings on file herein.

II.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, RODRIGO DAVID CANTU 

prays that this Court enter an order dismissing this action and all claims asserted by

RODRIGO DAVID CANTU against SANDRA GUERRA in this matter and granting 

such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which RODRIGO DAVID CANTU 

may show himself to be justly entitled.

FILED

11/27/2019 9:26 AM

Mary Angie Garcia

Bexar County District Clerk

Accepted By: Ana Cortijo

438TH

GUERRA 000734

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109-12 Filed 10/14/22 Page 2 of 4
Page 2 of 2

MOTION TO DISMISS

In the Interest of Sofia Elena Cantu and Maya Isabella Cantu, Children

Respectfully submitted,

THE LAW OFFICE OF TANIA K. 

ROSAMOND PLLC

111 W. Anderson Lane, Suite E316

Austin, Texas 78752

512.971.8549 (Telephone)

512.233.1765 (Telecopy)

Tania@rosamondlaw.com

__________________________________ 

By: Tania K. Rosamond

TX Bar Card No. 24063287

Attorney for RODRIGO DAVID CANTU

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

In accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, I hereby certify that on 

the 27th day of November 2019, I provided a copy of the attached Motion for Dismissal 

with Prejudice to the following counsel of record:

Tina Torres _____ Hand Delivery

TINA TORRES, PLLC _____ Facsimile

8100 Broadway, Suite 105 _____ CM, RRR

San Antonio, Texas 78209 __X_ e-Service/e-Mail

210.775.1255 (Telephone)

210.775.1254 (Telecopy)

tina@tinatorreslaw.com

Attorney for SANDRA GUERRA.

THE LAW OFFICE OF TANIA K. 

ROSAMOND PLLC

__________________________________ 

By: Tania K. Rosamond

TX Bar Card No. 24063287

Attorney for RODRIGO DAVID CANTU

GUERRA 000735

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109-12 Filed 10/14/22 Page 3 of 4
Page 3 of 2

MOTION TO DISMISS

In the Interest of Sofia Elena Cantu and Maya Isabella Cantu, Children

GUERRA 000736

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 109-12 Filed 10/14/22 Page 4 of 4