alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. APPLE INC., AT & T Services, Inc., Charter Communications, Inc., Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Cox Communications, Inc., DirecTV, LLC, Dish Network LLC, Sirius XM Radio Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc., Defendants-Appellees

2016-2186

2016-2453

2016-2454

2016-2456

2016-2459

2016-2460

2016-2461

2016-2462

2016-2463

2016-2464

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Decided: November 1, 2017

*1006Lei Mei, Mei & Mark LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Laurence M. Sandell.

Michael Jay, Boies, Schiller *&*Flexner LLP, Santa Monica, CA, argued for defendant-appellee Apple Inc. Also represented by Nandan Padmanabhan.

Michael Hawes, Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX, argued for defendants-appel-lees- AT & T Services, Inc., DISH Network LLC, DirecTV, LLC. Defendant-appellee AT & T Services, Inc. also represented by Michelle Jacobson Eber, Roger Fulghum; Bryant C. Boren, Jr., Palo Ato, CA. Defendant-appellee DISH Network LLC also represented by Bradley Bowling, Ali Dhanani, Michael Sherby; George Hopkins Guy, III, Palo Ato, CA; Jamie Roy Lynn, Washington, DC. Defendant-appellee DirecTV, LLC also represented by Kevin Gerard McBride, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Irvine, CA; John Wittenzeller, Philadelphia, PA.

Michael Martin Murray, Winston *&*Strawn LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendants-appellees Charter Communications, Inc., Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Cox Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc. Aso represented by Michael Louis Brody, Chicago, IL; Geoffrey P. Eaton, Washington, DC.

Mark Baghdassarian, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendant-appellee Sirius XM Radio Inc. Aso represented by Shannon H. Hedvat.

Before Moore, Mayer, and Stoll, Circuit Judges.

Stoll, Circuit Judge.

Dragon Intellectual Property appeals the district court's Final Judgments entered pursuant to the parties’ stipulations of noninfringement of claims 1-4, 8, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 5,930,444. Our decision today in a related case, *Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. DISH Network LLC et al.,*Nos. 2016-2468, -2492, affirms the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that claims 1-4, 7-10, 13, and 14 of the ’444 patent are invalid. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

DISMISSED AS MOOT

Costs

No costs.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Certification of Chief
Financial Officer

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Pure Bioscience (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter
ended April 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Andrew J. Buckland, Chief Financial Officer certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)       
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)       
          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|              |                                                                  
|------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|June 12, 2008 | /s/ Andrew J. Buckland
Andrew J. Buckland
Chief Financial Officer

---
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Advanced ID Corporation (the "Company"),
hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2009
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Dan Finch
                                 ----------------------
                                 Dan Finch
                                 Chief Executive Officer

May 15, 2009

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Advanced ID Corporation (the "Company"),
hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2009
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Seymour Kazimirski
                                 ----------------------
                                 Seymour Kazimirski
                                 Chief Financial Officer

May 15, 2009
#### Juan Carlos JACINTO-VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III,1 Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 16-1113

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 19, 2017

Filed: April 28, 2017

Steven Kenneth Wichmer, Wichmer & Groneck, Saint Louis, MO, for Petitioner

Elizabeth Robyn Chapman, Trial Attorney, Nancy Canter, Trial Attorney, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Kristen A. Giuffreda Chapman, Esq., Trial Attorney, Carl H. McIntyre, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

1

. Jefferson B. Sessions, III is substituted for his predecessor pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

PER CURIAM.

Mexican citizen Juan Carlos Jacinto-Vazquez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting the decision of an immigration judge denying withholding of removal, and denying relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).2 After careful consideration, we conclude substantial evidence supports the denials. Jacinto-Vazquez failed to establish a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened in Mexico because of his membership in a particular social group, and failed to establish he was entitled to CAT relief. *See De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder,*713 F.3d 375, 381-82 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard for granting CAT relief); *Davila-Mejia v. Mukasey,*531 F.3d 624, 627, 629 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review; withholding requirements).

The petition for review is denied. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

2

. The rulings determining that Jacinto-Vazquez had not timely filed his asylum application or shown circumstances to excuse his untimcliness are not before us in this petition for review.
#### Commonwealth, Appellant, *v.*Cornetti.

Argued March 31, 1953.

Before Stern, C. J., Stearne, Jones, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

*Randolph C. Ryder,*Deputy Attorney General, with him *Robert B. Greer, Jr.,*and *Robert E. Woodside,*Attorney General, for appellant.

No argument was made nor brief submitted for appellee.

*408April 22, 1953:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Allen M. Stearne,

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from an order of the court of common pleas setting aside a suspension by the Secretary of Revenue of an operator’s license for operating a motor vehicle. The offense charged was speed on a public highway at seventy miles per hour when the maximum lawful speed was fifty miles per hour.

What we said in *Commonwealth v. Emerick,*373 Pa. 388, 96 A. 2d 370, relating to legal principles and construction of The Vehicle Code, has similar application to the facts in the present case.

Charles Cornetti, Jr., defendant, was charged by a state policeman with traveling on a public highway on March 22, 1952, after dark, at a speed of seventy miles per hour. The road was dry and traffic moderate. Such speed was a violation of The Vehicle Code. Defendant did not deny the violation, and the only reason given by him for such violation was, “I was late for an appointment.” He was twenty years of age, unmarried, and living home with his father and mother. He had been driving for four years; had been fined several times for “going through a stop sign”; and had been involved in an accident, although no charge was made against him. The order of suspension was rescinded solely on the ground of economic hardship. In the order the court said: “. . . it appearing to the Court that the petitioner’s violation did not endanger the life or property of any person; and it further appearing to the Court that the petitioner would be unable to continue in his employment without a driver’s license which would result in a great and undue hardship not justified by the facts of this case, the prayer -of said petition is granted, and the Order of the Secretary of Revenue suspending the li*409cense of Charles Cornetti, Jr. is hereby set aside and full driving privileges are hereby restored to the said Charles Cornetti, Jr.”

Such an order under the circumstances of this case constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion.

The order is reversed at the cost of the appellee.
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-42
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-42


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
LP (the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to
Section 3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned
Series (the "Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
#### PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG, Plaintiff-Appellant v. XILINX, INC., Defendant-Appellee

2016-2323

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 12, 2017

Nicole E. Glauser, DiNovo, Price, Ell-wanger *&*Hardy LLP, Austin, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Andrew Dinovo, Jay D. Ellwanger.

Matthew J. Silveira, Jones Day, San Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-ap-pellee. Also represented by Patrick Thomas Michael; David B. Cochran, Cleveland, OH.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Lourie and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-7005 CRAIG EVERETT ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-94-65-H, CA-97-306-5-H) Submitted: August 11, 1998 Decided: September 1, 1998 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSELCraig Everett Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett, Barbara Dickerson Kocher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), as barred by the one-year limitation period imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (effective Apr. 24, 1996). Appellant's conviction b ecame final in June 1995. B ecause Appellant's conviction became final prior to implementation of the one-year limitation period, Appellant had until April 23, 1997, in which to file his § 2255 motion. See Brown v. Angelone , ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 389030, at *5-*6 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998) (Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208). Appellant's § 2255 motion was dated April 22, 1997, the certified mail receipt was stamped April 23, and the motion was filed on April 24. Thus, Appellant's motion was not time barred. See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (notice of appeal is deemed filed when it is delivered to prison officials); see also Burns v. Morton , 134 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1998) (applying Houston to the filing of habeas petition); Lewis v. Richmond City Police Dep't , 947 F.2d 733, 735-36 (4th Cir. 1991) (applying Houstonto filing of civil rights complaint for statute of limitations purposes). Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue, vacate the district court's order, and remand for further proceedings.We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Chalon CHISHOLM, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11422 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

FILED September 27, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

William Ernest Hermesmeyer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Chalón Chisholm appeals the 40-month above guideline sentence imposed following her guilty plea conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Chisholm contends that her sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to follow the proper procedures in imposing the sentence as a departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3.

Chisholm’s argument is without merit. This court recognizes three types of sentences: (1) a sentence within the advisory guidelines range; (2) a “departure” based on the Guidelines; and (3) a non-guidelines *836sentence or “variance” independent of the Guidelines and based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. *United States v. Brantley,*537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008), To that end, the record reflects that the district court imposed a non-guidelines sentence or variance based on the § 3553(a) factors. Thus, Chisholm’s arguments regarding the district court’s misapplication of § 4A1.3 are inapposite. Chisholm does not otherwise challenge the sentence as a variance based on the § 3553(a) factors, nor does she challenge the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Chisholm elsewhere argues that the district court failed to adequately explain the above guidelines sentence. However, the argument, which is made without citation to authorities or the record, is inadequately briefed and is' therefore waived. *See United States v. Scroggins,*599 F.3d 433, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED,

*

 Pursuant to 5th CIR. 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 5th CIR. R. 47.5.4.
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0800 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0800

**2002/800/EC: Council Decision of 8 October 2002 amending Decision 98/508/EC on the conclusion of an Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia **

*
Official Journal L 278 , 16/10/2002 P. 0019 - 0019 *

Council Decision

of 8 October 2002

amending Decision 98/508/EC on the conclusion of an Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia

(2002/800/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 in conjunction with Article 300(2), first subparagraph, first sentence, and Article 300(3), first subparagraph, first sentence, and (4) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

In order to ensure the efficient operation of the Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia(1) (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") it is necessary to amend Decision 98/508/EC(2) in order to empower the Commission to take all necessary measures for the operation of the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

Article 3 of Decision 98/508/EC shall be replaced by the following: "Article 3

1. The Commission shall represent the Community in the Joint Committee provided for in Article 12 of the Agreement, assisted by the special Committee designated by the Council. The Commission shall proceed, after consultation with this special Committee, to the appointments, notifications, exchanges of information and requests for information specified in the Agreement.

2. The position of the Community in the Joint Committee shall be determined by the Commission, following consultation of the special Committee referred to in paragraph 1."

Done at Luxembourg, 8 October 2002.

For the Council

The President

T. Pedersen

(1) OJ L 229, 17.8.1998, p. 3.

(2) OJ L 229, 17.8.1998, p. 1.
# EUR-Lex - 32003D0151 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003D0151

**2003/151/EC: Commission Decision of 3 March 2003 amending Decision 92/452/EEC establishing lists of embryo collection teams and embryo production teams approved in third countries for export of bovine embryos to the Community as regards Canada and the United States of America (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2003) 658) **

*
Official Journal L 059 , 04/03/2003 P. 0026 - 0027 *

Commission Decision

of 3 March 2003

amending Decision 92/452/EEC establishing lists of embryo collection teams and embryo production teams approved in third countries for export of bovine embryos to the Community as regards Canada and the United States of America

(notified under document number C(2003) 658)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2003/151/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 89/556/EEC of 25 September 1989 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and importation from third countries of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species(1), as last amended by Commission Decision 94/113/EC(2), and in particular Article 8 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 92/452/EEC(3), as last amended by Decision 2003/12/EC(4), provides that Member States are only to import embryos from third countries where they have been collected, processed and stored by an embryo collection team listed in that Decision. Canada and the United States of America have requested that amendments be made to those lists as regards the entries for those countries.

(2) Canada and the United States of America have provided guarantees regarding compliance with the appropriate rules set out in Directive 89/556/EEC and the collection teams concerned have been officially approved for exports to the Community by the veterinary services of those countries.

(3) Decision 92/452/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 92/452/EEC is amended as follows:

1. The row for Canada team No E 728 is replaced by the following:

">TABLE>"

2. The following row is added concerning United States of America teams:

">TABLE>"

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 7 March 2003.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 March 2003.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 302, 19.10.1989, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 53, 24.2.1994, p. 23.

(3) OJ L 250, 29.8.1992, p. 40.

(4) OJ L 7, 11.1.2003, p. 84.
#### Md Iftiar UDDIN Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States Respondent

No. 17-1277

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 27, 2017

Filed: November 7, 2017

Khagendra Gharti Chhetry, Chhetry & Associates, P.C., New York, NY, for Petitioner

Carl H. McIntyre, Craig Alan Newell, Jr., OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the decision by an immigration judge (IJ) to deny Md Iftiar Ud-din’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, finding that Uddin’s allegations were not credible. Uddin petitions for review. We deny the petition.

Uddin is a national and citizen of Bangladesh. According to his testimony and submissions during his administrative proceedings, Uddin was a local leader in the Bangladesh National Party and was attacked and threatened by members of the rival Awami League with the complicity of the police. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the decision to discredit Uddin’s account because a “reasonable adjudicator would [not] be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Osonowo v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 922, 927 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)) (alteration added). Uddin repeatedly misstated the circumstances of how he joined the BNP, claiming to have presented a national identification card that in fact was not issued until three years later. Uddin’s unsupported account of police collusion with the Awami League was in tension with the fact that Bangladesh was controlled by an unaffiliated “caretaker” government at the relevant time. Uddin also gave three different accounts of the attack that allegedly prompted kirn to leave the country, changing details about where it happened, who was with him, and whether his companions were attacked as well.

The justifications Uddin offers for these and other discrepancies, while plausible, are not compelled by the record, so we will not overrule the credibility findings of the IJ and the BIA See Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775, 783 (8th Cir. 2008) (“A reviewing court may not supersede an agency finding simply because an alternative finding could also be supported.”). Further, Uddin’s contradictions and omissions are not minor but relate to the nature and cause of his alleged persecution. See Chakhov v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 843, 847 (8th Cir. 2016); cf. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii), 1229a(c)(4)(C) (providing that credibility determinations in immigration cases can be based on the plausibility, consistency, and accuracy of the applicant’s statements “without regard *562to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim”).

The petition is denied.