alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

LEXINGTON LUMINANCE LLC

Plaintiff, 

v.

ELLIOTT ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC.

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-546-ADA

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER

Defendant Elliott Electric Supply, Inc. (“Elliott” or “Defendant”) files this unopposed

motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise plea in response to Plaintiff's Complaint for 

Patent Infringement (ECF 1) filed on June 17, 2020 by Plaintiff Lexington Luminance LLC 

("Plaintiff"). In support of this motion, Defendant respectfully shows the Court as follows:

1. On June 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Complaint for Patent Infringement 

(ECF 1).

2. Per prior agreement with Plaintiff, and this Court's order entered on July 12, 2020 

Defendant’s current deadline to answer or otherwise plead in response to the Plaintiff's Complaint

for Patent Infringement is July 31, 2020 (ECF 6).

3. Defendant respectfully requests ten (10) days (i.e., until August 10, 2020) to answer 

or otherwise plead in response to Plaintiff's Complaint for Patent Infringement.

4. Plaintiff is unopposed to the relief sought by way of this motion.

5. The requested extension of time will not affect any other Court deadlines.

6. This motion is not sought for purposes of delay, but only so justice may be done.

Case 6:20-cv-00546-ADA Document 7 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 2
7. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant this 

unopposed motion for extension of time, and extend until August 10, 2020 the deadline for 

Defendant to answer or otherwise plead in response to Plaintiff's Complaint for Patent Infringement.

Dated: July 30, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Sara Schretenthaler Staha

Robert S. Hill (application forthcoming)

 Texas Bar No. 24050764

 Robert.Hill@hklaw.com

Sara Schretenthaler Staha

 Texas Bar No. 24088368

 Sara.Staha@hklaw.com

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

200 Crescent Court, Suite 1600

Dallas, TX 75201

(214) 964-9500 (telephone)

(214) 964-9501 (facsimile)

Allison M. Lucier (pro hac vice forthcoming)

 Massachusetts Bar No. 569193

 Allison.Lucier@hklaw.com

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

10 St. James Avenue

11th Floor

Boston, MA 02116

(617) 305-2132 (telephone)

(617) 523-6850 (facsimile) 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ELLIOTT 

ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served July 30, 

2020, to all counsel of record, via electronic mail and via ECF.

/s/ Sara Schretenthaler Staha

Sara Schretenthaler Staha

Case 6:20-cv-00546-ADA Document 7 Filed 07/30/20 Page 2 of 2
#### McCOWN v. STATE.

No. 24660.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 23, 1949.

No appearance for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was indicted for murder with malice aforethought of Bennie McCown. The case was submitted to a jury which found her guilty of murder without malice, and assessed her punishment at five years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without bills of exception or statement of facts. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

However, we observe that in pronouncing sentence upon appellant the court evidently through oversight omitted to give her the benefit of the indeterminate sentence, and sentenced her for five years. The sentence is corrected to provide that she serve not less than two nor more than five years in the penitentiary.

As thus amended, the judgment is affirmed.
#### WEST v. STATE.

No. 25692.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 6, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This purports to be an appeal from a conviction for unlawfully selling whisky in a dry area, with punishment assessed at a fine of $300.

The record before us fails to reflect a final judgment in the case, in the absence of which this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. 4 Tex.Jur., Sec. 16, p. 32; Sharp v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 219 S.W.2d 810.

The appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### Alton MIDDLETON, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 17, 1954.

Cornette & White, Harlan, for appellant

J. D. Buclcman, Jr., Atty. Gen., William F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for appeal from a judgment convicting appellant of the offense of transporting intoxicating liquor in local option territory for purpose of sale, imposing penalty of a fine of $100 and thirty days in jail.

Motion for appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
EUGEN E KILLIAN , JR. *

CAR LA . SAL*ISBURY * AVRI N SLATKI N RYA N MILUN* * KILLIA N SALISBUR Y *ME.MBE R N J a N YBAR S **ME:MBE R N J a C ABAR S &

ATTORNEY S A TLA W 

# m . 810-100303-05 5

February24 , 201 0 Th e Honorabl e RayLaHoo d Secretary Unite d State s Departmen to fTransportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , SE Washington , D.C . 2059 0 c ^ Subject : 0018 Haned a Combinatio n Service s Allocatio n Proceedin g DOT-OST - 2010 -
Dea rSecretaryLaHood : I supportth e Continenta l Airline s applicatio n t o provid e dail ynonsto p servic e betwee n Ne wYork/Newar k

an d Toky o Haned a airport . Ne wai rservic e t o Haneda , whic h i s schedule d t o begi n late rthi s year , i s mad e possibl e b yth e wid e rangin g ope n skie s agreemen twit h Japa n achieve d b yyou rDepartment . I applau d you reffort s o n th e histori cope n skies agreemen tan d no wurg e yo u t o selec tContinenta l t o provid e servic e connectin g th e U.S.' s financia l an d commercia l cente ratNe wYork/Newar k wit h Tokyo' s central/downtow n airport . Libert y- Haned a servic e woul d provid e a critica l lin k betwee n tw o o fth e world' s larges t economie s an d wil l hel p boos ttrad e an d commerc e acros s th e Ne wYork/Newar k regio n an d secondaril yacros s th e entir e northeaster n regio n o fth e U.S . Libert yairport i s surrounde d b yth e larges tpopulatio n pe rsquar e mil e i n th e country , whic h include s million s o fAsia n Americans . Additionally , recen tstudie s sho wtha tfo reveryfligh t adde d b yContinenta l i n th e Ne wYork/Newar k region , th e loca l econom ybenefit s a s employmen ti s sustained , regiona l income s ar e enhance d an d trad e expands . A s Continenta l operate s th e onl ytru e hu b i n th e regio n tha tconnect s Ne wYork/Newar k an d muc h o fth e U.S . t o th e world , Continenta l i s th e rightchoic e fo rne wHaned a servic e a s communitie s acros s th e entir e easter n U.S . wil l gai n acces s t o Haned a vi a connection s a tLiberty . Additionally , Continenta l Airline s ha s se titsel faparta s a stron g

55 5 ROUT E 1 SOUTH , SUIT E 43 0 • ISELIN , NE WJERSE Y 0883 0 • TEL : 732.912.210 0 • FAX : 732.912.210 1 14 WAL L STREET , 20T H FLOO R • NE WYORK , NE WYOR K 1 000 5 • TEL : 212.618.140 9 • FAX : 212.618.170 5 WWW.K-S.CO MTh e Honorabl e Ra yLaHoo d

February24 , 201 0 Pag e 2 airiin e wit h a commitmen tt o safet yan d excellenc e fo rcustomers , b e take n int o accoun twhe n awardin g an yrout e t o Haneda . N o doub tthi s shoul d Continenta l Airiine s i s committe d t o th e Asia n regio n an d t o nonsto p Toky o Haned a service . Th e Ne wYork/Newar k economy , million s o fAmerican s o n th e U.S . eas t coast , th e airline' s thousand s o femployee s an d hundred s o fthousand s o fU.S . consumer s wil l benefi tfro m Continental' s propose d servic e an d wil l wor k togethe rt o mak e Libert y Internationa l Airport - Haned a servic e a rea l success . I urg e yo u t o awar d Toky o Haned a rights t o Continenta l Airiine s an d m yregio n o fth e U.S . Sincerely ,
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2009-1252

Directorate Identifier: 2009NM248AD

FSA7X-34-09-01-R1 --- 10/21/09

AFM 3-140-65, 12--- UNDATED

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Dale: 03105/2008
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of Triple Net Properties, LLC, the Manager of NNN 2002 Value Fund,
LLC (the Company) hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that: (i)
the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/   Scott D. PetersScott D. PetersChief Financial Officer
Triple Net Properties, LLC,
the Manager of NNN 2002 Value Fund, LLC Date: August 1, 2005 A
signed original 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. The
foregoing certification is being furnished with the Companys
Form 10-K/A for the period
ended December 31, 2004 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless
of any general information language in such filing.
Order entered April 2 8 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 19 - 00892 - CV LOIS YVONNE HUNTRESS , Appellant

V. HICKORY TRAIL HOSPIT AL, L.P. AND JELIL O NANUGA, M.D., Appellee s On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 17 - 14354

ORDER Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file reply brief is GRANTED , and appellant’s reply brief received April 23, 2020, is ORDE RED filed as of the date of this order
. We further GRANT appellees leave to file a sur

- reply brief; any
sur - reply brief must be filed by May 5, 2020.
/s/ LANA MYERS PRESIDING JUSTICE
July 26, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

FREDERICK L. NICHOLAS, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00403-CV V.

ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED, BRIAN G. 

COOK, REIF WINERY INC. (C.O.B. AS REIF ESTATE WINERY), KLAUS

REIF AND RE/DEFINING WATER INC., Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellees, 

Environmental Systems (International) Limited, Brian G. Cook, Reif Winery Inc. 

(c.o.b. as Reif Estate Winery), Klaus Reif and Re/Defining Water Inc., signed 

February 4, 2015, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the 

record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below 

AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Frederick L. Nicholas, to pay all costs incurred in this 

appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3290 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3290

 To provide that all Federal employees shall be deemed to be employees 
    excepted from furlough for purposes of the Government shutdown 
    commencing on or about October 1, 2013, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 11, 2013

Mr. Kingston (for himself, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Moran) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that all Federal employees shall be deemed to be employees 
    excepted from furlough for purposes of the Government shutdown 
    commencing on or about October 1, 2013, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES DURING GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN.

    (a) In General.--This Act applies with respect to any lapse in 
appropriations commencing on or about October 1, 2013.
    (b) All Employees Treated as Excepted Employees.--During a lapse in 
appropriations described in subsection (a), all Federal employees 
shall, for purposes of section 1342 of title 31, United States Code 
(and notwithstanding the last sentence of such section), be deemed to 
be performing services relating to emergencies involving the safety of 
human life or the protection of property.
    (c) Normal Rules Relating to Leave and Holidays.--Effective as of 
October 1, 2013, Federal employees considered excepted from furlough 
during a lapse in appropriations which is described in subsection (a), 
and which affects the agency activity in which the employee is engaged, 
shall not be considered to be furloughed when on leave and shall be 
subject to the same laws, rules, and regulations relating to leave and 
holidays as would apply if no lapse in appropriations had occurred.
    (d) Compensation for Furloughed Employees.--Federal employees 
furloughed as a result of a lapse in appropriations described in 
subsection (a) shall be compensated at their standard rate of 
compensation, for the period for which they were so furloughed, as soon 
as practicable after such lapse in appropriations ends.
    (e) Definition.--For purposes of this Act, the term ``Federal 
employee'' means an officer or employee of the United States 
Government.
                                 <all>
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15** 
**- 6566** 

CURTIS LAMONT MCCOY ,
Petitioner

– Appellant ,

v.

DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. James R. Spencer, Senior District Judge. ( 3:13

- cv
- 00857

- JRS )

Submitted : July 23, 2015 Decided: July 28, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Curtis Lamont McCoy, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Curtis Lamont McCoy seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction because the n otice of appeal was not timely

filed.

Parties in a civil action in which the United States is not
a party are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district
court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)( 6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of
appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles

v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March

11, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on
April 13, 2015. 1 Because McCoy failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, 2

1 W e assume that the date McCoy signed and dated the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

2 McCoy did not ex plicitly request additional time in which to file his notice of appeal, nor did he request a reopening of the appeal period. He dated his notice of appeal April 13 , 2015, which would make his notice un timely. The postmark on the envelope3 we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequate ly presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

DISMISSED

is dated April 1 6 , 2015. The notice of appeal was not sworn or

n otarized in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). “‘ [A] bare notice of appeal should not be construed as a motion for extension of time, where no request for additional time is manifest.’” Washington v. Bumgarner , 882 F.2d 899, 901 (4th Cir. 1989) (quoting Shah v. Hutto , 722 F.2d 1167, 1168

- 69 (4th Cir. 1983) (en banc)).
#### KNIGHT v. STATE.

No. 23092.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 21, 1945.

Percy Woodard, of Marshall, 'for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant, as an adult male, was charged with the commission of an aggravated assault upon the person of a female child, and was by the jury fined $500 and sentenced to serve one year in the county jail.

There are no bills of exceptions in the record, and no brief filed for appellant. The testimony itself bears out the allegations in the information, and shows an indecent fondling of the leg of a little seven year old girl, and the exposure of appellant’s private parts at the same time. Appellant presented an alibi, upon which the trial court charged, yet appellant admitted his presence at the scene of the alleged offense, but vigorously denied the commission thereof. However he was positively identified by two little girls, and his conduct testified to, in part, by one little girl, and in another part by a second little girl of ten years. The jury were the judges of these facts, and we do not think it our duty to disturb their findings herein. While the verdict might be a rather severe punishment, it was within the limits prescribed by the statute.

The judgment will be affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-51064 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN ANTONIO CAMPOS-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-97-CR-421-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - April 8, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Juan Antonio Campos-Gonzalez appeals his sentence for reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Campos-Gonzalez argues that he was charged with and pleaded guilty to simple reentry under § 1326(a) and that he could not be sentenced under § 1326(b) because the indictment did not allege that he had a prior aggravated felony conviction. His argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in AlmendarezTorres v. United States , ___ U.S. ___, 1998 WL 126904, at *3, *8 (U.S. Mar. 24, 1998).No. -2- AFFIRMED.
#### FARMER v. STATE.

No. 24488.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 19, 1949.

No attorney for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully carrying a pistol; the penalty assessed is a fine of |200.

The complaint and information, as well as all. other matters of procedure, appear to be in regular form. The record is before this, court without a statement of facts and bills of exception, in the absence of which, no question is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Comment on DOD-2014-OS-0101-0001: Having had friends serving in the military, 

who have suffered from such assaults, this new amendment will certainly increase my 

confidence in the DOD's service to the members of the armed forces. The statistical data 

that will become available will be integral to future development of regulations regarding 

sexual assault and victims of such. However, the availability of the information may be 

concerning, and more information about the access methods would be beneficial to the 

decision of amending this existing regulation.

DoD Response: One commenter expressed concern regarding the availability of 

information and indicated that more information about the access methods would be 

beneficial. The access to records described in the system of records notice addresses how 

the subject of the record may request access to his/her record. Disclosure of these records 

not from the subject of the record must also be in accordance with the Privacy Act which 

does allow for the disclosure of a record (in this instance) (b)(1) to those officers and 

employees of the agency which maintains the record who have a need for the record in 

the performance of their duties, and (b)(2) required under section 552 of this title [the 

Freedom of Information Act]. There are additional conditions of disclosure established at 

5 U.S.C. 552a(b), however, the remainder generally would not apply to these records. 

There are no specific routine uses established for this system of records.

Comment on DOD-2014-OS-0101-0001: What intention is this proposal offering other 

than moving records or record holders? I don't feel that moving records without a clear, 

reasonable and justifiable need is appropriate. What exactly are the implications? I think 

there is no desire to, victim-wise, to shuffle information and simply make a copy. This 

information should be classified as "need to know". . .?

DoD Response: One commenter was concerned about the change in system location and 

that it was made without a clear, reasonable and justifiable need. The Privacy Act and 

OMB Circular A-130 require Federal agencies to publish formal notification in the 

Federal Register when changes are made to Privacy Act System of Records Notices 

(SORNs). When publishing changes, the DoD publishes the entire section of the SORN 

rather than just the paragraph being changed. In this instance, the only change was with 

the Department of the Army which had moved these records to Quantico, VA (where the 

Departments of the Navy and Air Force were already maintaining their records on this 

matter). 

This commenter had a second concern that the information be “need to know”. The 

Department of Defense considers all Privacy Act protected information “need to know” 

and the safeguard section of this SORN identifies that access to these records is, among 

other identified safeguards, role-based.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 05334**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  05334\05334_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 05334\05334_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

05334\Certification Statement_05334.pdf Plant certification statement x 05334\Supporting Documentation\Email from ERG_05334.pdf Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey. x 05334\05334_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

05334\05334_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

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