alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

September 4, 2012

d0827

Order 

September 4, 2012

145065

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145065

COA: 300272

Wayne CC: 10-001533-FC

REGINALD DORIAN SALTER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 13, 2012 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
AGREED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE – Page 1

DALLAS3 1237618v1 11328-00084

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KATHY MOLL, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1855-N

§

THE RICHARDS GROUP, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

AGREED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Kathy Moll ( “Plaintiff”) and Defendants The Richards Group and Stanford

Richards (“Defendants”) have announced that all claims asserted or which could have been

asserted by Plaintiff against Defendants in this cause of action, have been fully and finally

compromised and settled, and they seek dismissal of this entire lawsuit, each cause of action

asserted therein, and each cause of action which could be asserted therein, with prejudice.

It is, therefore,

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this lawsuit and all claims asserted

herein, or which could be asserted therein, by Plaintiff against Defendants are DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE to the right of Plaintiff to file or refile or reinstate same or any part

thereof in this or any other court, tribunal or forum.

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that each Party shall bear its, his, or her

own costs.

Case 3:05-cv-01855-N Document 27 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 96
AGREED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE – Page 2

DALLAS3 1237618v1 11328-00084

Signed September 26, 2006.

_________________________________

David C. Godbey

United States District Judge

AGREED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:

/s/Marc D. Katz

Marc D. Katz

Attorney-in-Charge

Texas Bar Number 00791002

Gail N. Salcido

Texas Bar Number 24032896

JENKENS & GILCHRIST

a Professional Corporation

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200

Dallas, Texas 75202

Telephone: (214) 855-4500 

Telecopy: (214) 855-4300 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

/s/Jeremi K. Young

Jeremi K. Young

Attorney-in-Charge

Texas Bar Number 24013793

The Young Law Firm

112 W. 8 Avenue, Suite 900-D th

Amarillo, Texas 79101

Telephone: (806) 331-1800

Telecopy: (806) 398-9095

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 3:05-cv-01855-N Document 27 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 97
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FINJAN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF (SVK)

FURTHER ORDER ON JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER RE FINJAN’S 

REQUEST TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 

OF CISCO EMAILS 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 175; 186

In the February 14, 2019 Order on Joint Discovery Letter re Finjan’s Request to Compel 

Production of Cisco Emails, the Court ordered Cisco to provide additional information regarding 

the requests for and production of documents relating to Cisco’s knowledge of Finjan’s patents in 

the 2004-2009 time frame. ECF 178. On February 19, 2019, Cisco filed a statement in response 

to the Court’s order. ECF 186. Based on Cisco’s Statement, the Court orders as follows:

1. With respect to each of the individuals listed in “Source 2” of Cisco’s Statement, Cisco 

must identify their name, their title and (if not readily apparent from the title) their role

at Cisco, whether they are still employed by Cisco, whether Cisco has the employee’s

emails, and whether those emails have been searched for references to the Finjan 

patents-in-suit. Cisco must serve this information on Finjan by February 25, 2019.

2. If there are five or fewer individuals from the “Source 2” list whose emails are in 

Cisco's control but have not yet been searched, Cisco must search the emails for 

references to the Finjan patents-in-suit during the 2004-2009 time frame and produce 

them by March 6, 2019. If there are more than five such individuals, Finjan may 

select five custodians for additional search/production by Cisco, which must be 

completed by Cisco within ten (10) days of Finjan’s identification. Finjan’s selection 
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of custodians is without prejudice to Finjan moving to compel the search of additional 

“Source 2” custodians with a proper show of good cause and proportionality in 

accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2019

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00421-CR

Jacob Sanchez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR2013-199, HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on July 3, 2014. His brief was due on November

6, 2014. On November 14, 2014, this Court informed appellant’s retained counsel that appellant’s

brief was overdue and that we would refer the matter to the trial court for a hearing if we did not

receive a response by November 24, 2014.

To date, appellant’s brief has not been filed and his counsel has not responded to our

notice. We therefore abate the appeal. The trial court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether

appellant wishes to pursue his appeal, whether appellant is indigent, and if he is not indigent,

whether retained counsel has abandoned this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2), (3). The court

shall make appropriate findings and recommendations. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2), (3). If

appellant still desires to appeal and the court finds that he is indigent, the court shall make
appropriate orders to ensure that appellant is adequately represented on appeal. See Tex. R. App.

P. 38.8(b)(2), (3). Following the hearing, which shall be transcribed, the trial court shall order the

appropriate supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records, including copies of all findings and orders

and a transcription of the court reporter’s notes, to be prepared and forwarded to this Court no later

than February 17, 2015.

It is so ordered this 16th day of January, 2015.

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field

Abated and Remanded

Filed: January 16, 2015

Do Not Publish

2
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER VACATING PORTIONS OF SEALING ORDER, ECF NO. 1100, REGARDING PEGATRON AND 

WISTRON AND HUAWEI AND ORDERING PEGATRON AND WISTRON AND HUAWEI TO REFILE 

SEALING MOTIONS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER VACATING PORTIONS OF 

SEALING ORDER, ECF NO. 1100, 

REGARDING PEGATRON AND 

WISTRON AND HUAWEI AND 

ORDERING PEGATRON AND 

WISTRON AND HUAWEI TO REFILE 

SEALING MOTIONS

On January 3, 2019, the Court entered an order sealing various portions of documents 

relating to Pegatron and Wistron and Huawei (collectively, “third parties”). ECF No. 1100. Upon 

further reflection, the Court finds that sealing these documents does not meet the compelling 

reasons standard for sealing. The Ninth Circuit has held, and this Court has previously ruled, that 

“pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms” of patent licensing 

agreements plainly constitute trade secrets, and are thus sealable. In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. 

App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, the Court VACATES its sealing order relating to the 

following documents, and ORDERS Pegatron and Wistron and Huawei to file narrowly-tailored 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1149 Filed 01/06/19 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER VACATING PORTIONS OF SEALING ORDER, ECF NO. 1100, REGARDING PEGATRON AND 

WISTRON AND HUAWEI AND ORDERING PEGATRON AND WISTRON AND HUAWEI TO REFILE 

SEALING MOTIONS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

sealing motions for the following documents:

• JX0042 (ECF No. 1084-5)—Pegatron and Wistron

• JX0053 (ECF No. 1084-2)—Pegatron and Wistron

• JX-022 (Exhibit 3 to ECF No. 1089)—Huawei

• JX-027 (Exhibit 4 to ECF No. 1089)—Huawei

• JX-097 (Exhibit 5 to ECF No. 1089)—Huawei 

• JX-098 (Exhibit 6 to ECF No. 1089)—Huawei

Pegatron and Wistron and Huawei shall have until January 8, 2019 to refile sealing requests for 

the above documents, or else the Court will deny their sealing motions with respect to the above 

documents with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1149 Filed 01/06/19 Page 2 of 2
ABS SERVICES, INC. v. JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, L.L.C. and the Continental Insurance Company

Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development v. Professional Services Industries, Inc.

NO. 2019-C-0473

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 17, 2019

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 39 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 39

 Honoring the 1,000,000 individuals who have died from COVID-19 in the 
                             United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 12, 2022

   Mr. Schatz (for himself and Mrs. Murray) submitted the following 
   concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Honoring the 1,000,000 individuals who have died from COVID-19 in the 
                             United States.

Whereas, on May 12, 2022, the United States reached 1,000,000 confirmed lives 
        lost due to COVID-19;
Whereas the first laboratory-confirmed case of COVID-19 in the United States was 
        recorded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on January 
        20, 2020;
Whereas the first known death from COVID-19 in the United States occurred in 
        February 2020;
Whereas, in the months following the first recorded death, the COVID-19 pandemic 
        has impacted individuals, families, and communities across the United 
        States;
Whereas estimates report that the death toll from COVID-19 has increased the 
        number of orphans in the United States by nearly 200,000 children;
Whereas scientific breakthroughs have been effective at reducing the COVID-19 
        death toll; and
Whereas it is recognized that mitigation efforts can reduce the number of deaths 
        due to COVID-19 and save lives: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That Congress--
            (1) recognizes and mourns the 1,000,000 known lives lost in 
        the United States due to COVID-19; and
            (2) honors the memory of the deceased and offers 
        condolences to their families and loved ones.
                                 <all>
```
ERICA LANE ENTERPRISES, INC. v. IUE-CWA PENSION FUND et al.

1160480

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Randall Lamar THOMAS

1161122 (CR-16-0305)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

October 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
James L. KEENE, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 1D19-776

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 18, 2019

James L. Keene, pro se, Petitioner.

Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

Because the proceeding below was a civil matter, the petition for belated appeal is denied. *See**Powell v. Fla. Dep't of Corrections* , 727 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

Roberts, Ray, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
Case 24-50120-rlj7    Doc 10    Filed 06/10/24    Entered 06/10/24 15:15:59    Desc MainDocument      Page 1 of 4

Case 24-50120-rlj7    Doc 10    Filed 06/10/24    Entered 06/10/24 15:15:59    Desc MainDocument      Page 2 of 4

Case 24-50120-rlj7    Doc 10    Filed 06/10/24    Entered 06/10/24 15:15:59    Desc MainDocument      Page 3 of 4

Case 24-50120-rlj7    Doc 10    Filed 06/10/24    Entered 06/10/24 15:15:59    Desc MainDocument      Page 4 of 4
SQUIRE

SANDERS

September 24, 2008

LEGAL

COUNSEL

WORLDWIDE

VIA ELECTRONIC FILING (AND NEXT-DAY HAND DELIVERY)

Hon. Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman

United States District Court, N.D. California

450 Golden Gate Avenue

15th Floor, Courtroom G

San Francisco, CA 94102

SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY L.L.P.

One Maritime Plaza, Suite 300

San Francisco , CA 94111

Direct: +1.415.954.0383

Fax: +1.415.393.9887

dbalmat@ssd.com

Re: Unionamerica Insurance Company Limited v. The Fort Miller Group, Inc. et al.,

N.D. Cal. Case No. C05-1912 BZ

Dear Judge Zimmerman:

Through their undersigned counsel, the parties hereby jointly request a two-week extension of the

deadline for the parties to certify pursuant to the Court's Order Scheduling Jury Trial and Pretrial Matters

that all discovery supplementation has been completed, from the current deadline of September 24, 2008

to October 8, 2008.

Such an extension is necessary because the current deadline for such certification is today,

September 24, and both sides believe that further supplementation will be necessary. The parties have

been working to complete discovery and, as a result of the meet and confer process surrounding these

efforts, and to avoid motions to compel supplementing various responses, have only very recently either

agreed to provide certain supplemental responses or become aware of a potential need for additional

supplementation. The parties are currently determining the precise extent to which additional

supplementation may be necessary, and anticipate being able to complete whatever supplementation

should ultimately prove necessary by October 8, 2008.

For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request that the certification deadline be

extended from September 24, 2008 to October 8, 2008.

Respectfully submitted, / Respectfully submitted,

53 iel a T. Balmat

SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY, L.L.P.

Attorneys for The Fort Miller Group, Inc., The Fort

Miller Company, and Beeche Systems

R^yk V Steens

S LMAN BREITMAN LLP

Attorneys for Unionamerica Insurance Company

Limited

C NcmAn • CLEvFa.AND • CoLUMBus • HousTON • Los ANGE Fs • Mww • NEw YoRK • PALOALTo • PHOENm • SAN FRANCLsco . TALLAHASSEE • TAMPA- TYsoNs CORNER

WASHINGTON DC • WEST PALM BEACH I CARACAS • Rio DF. JANF7Ro. SANTO DOMINGO . SAO PAULO I BRAnsLAVA . BRUssELS • BUDAPEST • FRANKFURT • KYrv

LONDON . Moscow -PRAGUE • WARsAw I BEUING • HONG KONG . SHm4GRm • TOKYO I ASsociATED OFRcEs: BUCHAREST • BUENOS ARTS • DUBLIN • SAN'nAGO

www.ssd.Com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

GRANTED

Judge Bernard Zimmerman

9/25/2008

Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 156 Filed 09/25/08 Page 1 of 1
Amanda Burkett THOMAS v. Corey M. BURKETT

2160808

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 5, 2018

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





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 filing of the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) by China
Housing & Land Development, Inc. (the “Registrant”), I, Xiaohong Feng,
hereby certify that:





1. To the
best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2. To the
best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Registrant.




Dated:
      August 12, 2009
              By:
              /s/
      Xiaohong FengName: Xiaohong
      FengTitle:  
      Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of West Pointe Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Bruce A. Bone, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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 result of operations of the
Company.


March 29, 2006                          /s/ Bruce A. Bone
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Bruce A. Bone
                                        Executive Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer

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 West Pointe Bancorp, Inc. and will
be retained by West Pointe Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Joseph Seymour JONES v. ESTATE OF Forrest MITCHELL, deceased, et al.

2160890

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 13, 2018

Dismissed.
BATH CLUB ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Appellant, v. The RESIDENCES AT THE BATH CLUB MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 3D17-2556

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 27, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 21**

**Subsidiaries of the Company**

**The Company, Carrizo Oil & Gas,Inc., has the following wholly-owned Subsidiaries:**

**Subsidiary**

Bandelier Pipeline Holding, LLC 

Carrizo (Eagle Ford) LLC 

Carrizo Marcellus Holding Inc.

Carrizo (Marcellus) LLC 

Carrizo (Marcellus) WV LLC 

Carrizo (Niobrara) LLC 

Carrizo (Utica) LLC 

Carrizo UK Bardolph Ltd 

Carrizo UK Huntington Ltd 

CLLR, Inc. 

Hondo Pipeline, Inc. 

Mescalero Pipeline, LLC 

Monument Exploration, LLC 

**The Company, Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc., also has less than a 10% interest in the following entity:**

Oxane Materials, Inc.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 Avantair, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven Santo, Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

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

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

Date: August 8, 2007



|                 |  |                        
|---------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Steven Santo
|Name:            |  | Steven Santo           
|Title:           |  | Chief Executive Officer
John MANTIPLY and Melissa Sue Mantifly, et al. v. Joseph I. HOFFMAN, Jr., M.D.

NO. 2019-C-0588

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2019

Denied.