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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ESCAPEX IP LLC, )

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00963-X

v. )

)

SPOTIFY USA INC., )

Defendant. ) 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Plaintiff EscapeX IP LLC (“EscapeX”) files this Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time 

for Defendant Spotify USA Inc. (“Spotify”) to Respond to Complaint and respectfully shows the 

following:

Plaintiff EscapeX filed its Complaint on April 29, 2022 (Dkt. No. 1) and served Defendant 

Spotify on May 3, 2022. Defendant’s response is due May 24, 2022. Defendant requests a 60 day

extension to respond on or before July 23, 2022. Plaintiff conferred with Defendant’s counsel on 

May 19, 2022. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.

Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and enter an

order extending the deadline for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint to

July 23, 2022.

Respectfully Submitted

 Ramey LLP

/s/William P. Ramey

William P. Ramey, III

Texas Bar No. 24027643

5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800

Houston, Texas 77006

(713) 426-3923 (telephone)

(832) 900-4941 (fax)

Case 3:22-cv-00963-X Document 9 Filed 05/20/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 67
wramey@rameyfirm.com

Attorneys for ESCAPEX IP LLC

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Local Rules, William Ramey, counsel for Plaintiff, EscapeX IP LLC conferred 

with Derek Tang, counsel for Spotify USA Inc. by e-mail on May 19, 2022. Plaintiff is unopposed 

to the extension.

/s/ William P. Ramey, III

William P. Ramey, III

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and LR5, I hereby certify that all counsel 

of record who have appeared in this case are being served on this day of May 20, 2022, with a 

copy of the foregoing via email.

/s/ William P. Ramey, III

William P. Ramey, III

Case 3:22-cv-00963-X Document 9 Filed 05/20/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 68
# QSBL 123116

# QSBL 093016

# QSBL 063016

# QSBL 033116

# QSBL 123115

# QSBL 093015

# QSBL 063015

# QSBL 033115

# QSBL 123114

# QSBL 093014

# QSBL 063014

# QSBL 033114

# QSBL 123113

# QSBL 093013

# QSBL 063013

# QSBL 033113

# QSBL 123112

# QSBL 093012

# QSBL 063012

# QSBL 033112

# QSBL 123111

# QSBL 093011

# QSBL 063011

# QSBL 033111

# image1.png
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Owen Clarke, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Queens County,

November 1, 1957.

*500
      *Leonard L. Finz,*special guardian for Clarke infants.

*Starke, Cook & Ryan*for Peter Lynch and another, petitioners.

Anthony P. Savarese, S.

Proponents have offered a holographic will for probate. A problem arises as to the validity of the instrument because of testator’s use of the phrase *"*Until I get time to make a regular will and should I die before I do so, this is what I want done with my money,” which prefaces the disposition of his assets. The court is of the opinion that the quoted language is not conditional, but merely a statement of the inducement which led to the Avriting of the instrument. The only reasonable interpretation of the quoted phrase is that if testator died without having made some subsequent and more formal testamentary disposition of his assets, the propounded instrument should serve as his last will and testament.

The remaining question is whether another phrase “ I want my two good friends, Peter Lynch and Patrick Thomas Lynch to see that this is done ”, following the dispositive clauses, is sufficient to nominate the proponents as executors. It is clear that an individual may be entitled to serve as executor even though the will does not formally name him to serve in that capacity. *(Matter of Buchan,*16 Misc. 204.) If it can be determined from the words in the will that decedent desired someone to carry out the provisions thereof then he intended that person to be executor. *(Matter of Iommi,*195 Misc. 174.) It is apparent that the testator herein intended to have proponents act as executors, otherwise the words he used become meaningless. The proponents are deemed to be executors according to the tenor of the instrument.

Accordingly, the will is admitted to probate and letters testamentary will issue to proponents upon their qualifying according to law.

Submit decree on notice.
----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the exercise of voting rights by shareholders of companies having their registered office in a Member State and whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2004/109/EC

COM(2005) 685 final — 2005/0265 (COD)

(2006/C 318/06)

On 31 January 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 20 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Cassidy.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 83 votes to 9 with 18 abstentions.

1.   EESC conclusions and recommendations

2.   The Commission's proposal

It deals with obstacles to cross-border voting for shareholders.

3.   Options

4.   Costs and benefits

4.1   Benefits

4.2   Costs

5.   Specific comments

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  COM(2003) 284 final ‘Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union — A Plan to Move Forward’.

----
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION





S. James
Miller, Chief Executive Officer of ImageWare Systems, Inc. (the “Company”),
and Wayne Wetherell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350) that, to the best of his knowledge:





1. The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and





2. The
information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period
covered by the Quarterly Report and the results of operations of the Company for
the period covered by the Quarterly Report.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the
undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 26th day of May,
2010.





/s/    S.
      James MillerS.
      James MillerChief
      Executive Officer/s/    Wayne
      WetherellWayne
      WetherellChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ImageWare Systems, Inc. and will be retained by ImageWare
Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership (the Operating Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Terry L. Stevens, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Highwoods Properties, Inc., general partner of the
Operating Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Operating Partnership.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ TERRY L. STEVENS                                             
|Terry L. Stevens                                                 
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner

November 29, 2006
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2015-3929 ☐ These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2015-SW-031-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: ☒ FRAN ☐ SNPRM

☒ No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? 

If yes, list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the

previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point 

for guidance. Latest Revision.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: Choose one.

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): Click here to enter text.

What change to the AD action is requested? Click here to enter text.

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Click here to enter text.

Do we agree? Yes/No

If YES, we agree because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with Insert text because Insert justification We disagree 

with Insert text because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If NO, we don’t agree because Insert our rationale

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: Choose one.

If other, explain: Click here to enter text.

Commenter(s): Click here to enter text.

What change to the AD action is requested? Click here to enter text.

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Click here to enter text.

Do we agree? Yes/No 
Page 2 of 3

If YES, we agree because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with Insert text because Insert justification We disagree 

with Insert text because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If NO, we don’t agree because Insert our rationale

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### CAVENDER v. STATE.

No. 26169.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 7, 1953.

*864No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is murder without malice; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for three years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

The proceedings appearing regular and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 293

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That a revised edition of the book entitled

3 ‘‘History of the United States House of Representatives’’,

4 prepared under the supervision of the Committee on

5 House Administration of the House of Representatives,

6 shall be printed as a House document.

7 SEC. 2. In addition to the usual number, there shall

8 be printed the lesser of—
2

HCON 293 EH

1 (1) 5,000 casebound copies of the document, of

2 which 4,750 copies shall be for the use of the Com3 mittee on House Administration of the House of

4 Representatives and 250 copies shall be for the use

5 of the Senate; or

6 (2) such number of casebound copies of the

7 document as does not exceed a total production and

8 printing cost of $75,000, with such copies to be allo9 cated in the same proportion as described in para10 graph (1).

11 SEC. 3. Of the copies of the document for the use

12 of the Committee on House Administration of the House

13 of Representatives under section 2(1), at the request of

14 a Member of the House of Representatives, the Member

15 shall be entitled to receive at least 5 copies. The Commit16 tee shall notify each Member of the entitlement under the

17 preceding sentence. As used in this section, the term

18 ‘‘Member of the House of Representatives’’ means a Rep19 resentative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner

20 to, the Congress.

Passed the House of Representatives October 7 (legislative day, October 6), 1994.

Attest:

Clerk.

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 293

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the printing of the book entitled

resentatives’’.‘‘History of the United States House of Rep-
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 88 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 88

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             November 9 (legislative day, November 2), 1993

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing and commending American airmen held as prisoners of war at 
    the Buchenwald concentration camp during World War II for their 
                    service, bravery, and fortitude.

Whereas, during World War II, 173 Allied airmen were captured by the enemy and 
        held as prisoners of war at the Buchenwald concentration camp in Weimar, 
        Germany;
Whereas the captured airmen included 81 Americans, 27 Canadians, and 65 Britons, 
        Australians, and New Zealanders;
Whereas the facts and circumstances of their confinement are amply documented in 
        the official records maintained by the National Archives and Records 
        Administration;
Whereas a report from the International Red Cross concerning Stalag Luft III in 
        Sagan, Germany, mentioned 6 American airmen held at Buchenwald, 
        including 1 whose name does not appear on the lists maintained by the 
        National Archives;
Whereas, since the liberation of Buchenwald in 1945, numerous personal memoirs, 
        scholarly books, and articles have been published describing the 
        conditions at the concentration camp;
Whereas this extensive documentation records the extraordinarily inhuman 
        treatment, deprivations, and personal suffering inflicted on prisoners 
        of war and other inmates at Buchenwald; and
Whereas Allied Governments and veterans organizations outside the United States 
        have granted special recognition to their citizens and members who were 
        held as prisoners of war in World War II concentration camps: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress--
            (1) recognizes and commends the valiant American airmen 
        held as prisoners of war at the Buchenwald concentration camp 
        during World War II for their faithful service, personal 
        bravery, and exceptional fortitude; and
            (2) requests that the President issue a proclamation 
        recognizing and commending the service, bravery, and fortitude 
        of the American airmen.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 8, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EX-10.20



 Exhibit 10.20 

Schedule of Executive Officer Compensation 

The following is a summary of the compensation of the executive officers of Adept Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) effective commencing July 1,
2015 and in effect as of the date of filing of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K. 
  

									
	 Current Executive Officers
	  	Annual Base
Salary	 	  	Fiscal 2015
Incentive
Compensation	 	 Other Annual
Compensation (2)

	 Rob Cain

President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	350,000	  	  	(1)	 	Health care coverage; long- term disability and group term life insurance excess premiums; 401(k) match
		  				  		 	
	 Seth Halio

Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	255,000	  	  	(1)	 	Health care coverage; long- term disability and group term life insurance excess premiums; 401(k) match
		  				  		 	
	 Terry Hannon

Chief Business Development and Strategy

Officer
	  	$	275,000	  	  	(1)	 	Health care coverage; long- term disability and group term life insurance excess premiums; 401(k) match

 (1) Pursuant to participation in, and subject to terms of, the Fiscal 2016 Management Incentive Plan. 

(2) Other benefits to be provided by the Company to the identified executive officer. Equity awards have been granted to the executive officers pursuant to
option agreements and restricted stock unit agreements, the forms of which have been approved by the Compensation Committee and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
#### Department of Labor and Industry of Pennsylvania, Appellant, *v.*Unemployment Compensation Board of Review et al.

Argued December 11, 1939.

Before Keller, *100P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker, Rhodes and Hirt, JJ.

*David R. Perry,*Special Deputy Attorney General, with him *Claude T. Reno,*Attorney General, for appellant.

*Clair Groover,*for appellees.

December 19, 1939:

Per Curiam,

The appeal in this case was quashed at bar because the appeal petition, prescribed by the Unemployment Compensation Law of December 5, 1936, P. L. (1937) 2897, sections 510 and 208 (p), — which must “state the grounds upon which a judicial review is sought” — was not filed in the office of -the Prothonotary of this Court within thirty days after the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review became final.

The practice regulating appeals from courts is not applicable to appeals from the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review provided for in the above act.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 21, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132064 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132064 

 COA: 257036 

Tuscola CC: 03-008812-FH 

CORINNE MICHELLE MELTON, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 20, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

WEAVER, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

p0314 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 21, 2007 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 54 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 54

 Expressing the sense of the Congress that Congress should enact real 
    and substantial cuts in spending and approve a Balanced Budget 
Amendment to the Constitution before it considers raising taxes on the 
                            American people.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 24, 1993

 Mr. Knollenberg submitted the following concurrent resolution; which 
            was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Congress that Congress should enact real 
    and substantial cuts in spending and approve a Balanced Budget 
Amendment to the Constitution before it considers raising taxes on the 
                            American people.

Whereas, in the last thirty years the Federal Government has raised taxes fifty-
        four times and balanced the budget in only one year;
Whereas, historically, tax increases have resulted in higher deficits, in part 
        because Congress has spent $1.59 for each new tax dollar raised;
Whereas, the most recent example of a Federal deficit-reduction effort, the 1990 
        Budget Summit tax hike, produced increased spending of $2.34 for each 
        tax dollar raised;
Whereas, the American people, who already send over $1,100,000,000,000 in tax 
        dollars to the Federal Government, deserve to see that Congress and the 
        President have reduced Government spending in every way possible before 
        they are asked to pay more in taxes;
Whereas, in the first year of the President's economic proposal net spending 
        cuts total only $2,000,000,000 while tax and fee increases are 
        $36,000,000,000, an incredible eighteen to one ratio of tax increases 
        over spending cuts; and
Whereas, from 1994 to 1997 the President's plan calls for nearly $3 in new taxes 
        for every $1 of proposed spending cuts: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that Congress should not consider any 
tax increases on the American people until:
            (1) Congress has enacted real and substantial spending 
        cuts; and
            (2) Approved and sent to the States for ratification a 
        Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution.

                                 <all>
```