alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Craig Robert NUNN, petitioner, v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al.

No. 18-194.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Division denied.
1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-1237

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Larry Duane Smith, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 15, 2005 Filed: December 8, 2005

___________ Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Larry Smith pleaded guilty to conspiri ng to manufacture 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S .C. § 846. Because prior drug convictions subjected Smith to statutory minimum penalties, and the government so notified him,
see21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 851(a )(1), the district court 1 sentenced Smith to 10 years in prison and 8 years of supervised release. On appeal, Smith’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967),-2- noting Smith’s belief that the government should have filed a downward-departure motion for substantial assistance and he should have received a lesser sentence. We conclude that the district court did not err in imposing the statutory mandatory minimum sentence, and that Smith has not shown the government improperly refused to file a subs tantial-assistance motion. SeeWade v. United States , 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992) (defendant must s how government’s refusal to move for departure was not rationally related to any legitimate government purpose); United States v. Chacon , 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (district court did not have authority to depart below statutory minimum where government did not file substantial-assistance motion and defendant did not qualify for safety-valve relief). We also conclude that the sentence did not raise issues under United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). See United States v. Thomas , 398 F.3d 1058, 1063-64 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Vieth , 397 F.3d 615, 620 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 125 S. Ct. 2560 (2005). Having reviewed the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC CO., LTD and 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:23-CV-00103-JRG-RSP 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DECLARATION OF ANDRIA RAE CRISLER 

IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

ITS MOTION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW 

I, Andria Rae Crisler, hereby declare: 

1. I am a principal with the law firm Fish & Richardson P.C., and counsel for 

Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. I have 

personal knowledge of the facts contained in the declaration and, if called upon to do so, I could 

and would testify competently to the matters herein. 

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of IPR2023-01157 Institution 

Decision, dated January 22, 2024. 

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of IPR2023-01226 Institution 

Decision, dated February 8, 2024. 

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a series of emails between 

Headwater counsel and Samsung counsel regarding Headwater’s infringement contentions. 

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of a series of emails between 

Headwater counsel and Samsung counsel regarding Headwater’s responses to Samsung 

Interrogatory Nos. 1-14. 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 75-1 Filed 02/15/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 2125
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Headwater 

Research LLC’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, dated September 

28, 2023. 

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Headwater 

Research LLC’s Objections and Responses to Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Admission 

(Nos. 1-2), dated December 6, 2023. 

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of a November 22, 2023 

Letter to Plaintiff’s counsel from Defendants’ counsel regarding infringement contentions. 

9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is an exhibit created for purposes of this motion 

showing the various dates associated with the four IPRs Samsung has filed as to the three asserted 

patents. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 15th

day of February, 2024, in Richmond, VA. 

 /s/ Andria Rae Crisler 

 Andria Rae Crisler 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 75-1 Filed 02/15/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 2126
Tatyana Evgenievna DREVALEVA, petitioner, v. ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM, et al.

No. 18-9250.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 128771 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 128771 

 COA: 251651 

Genesee CC: 03-011745-FH 

RONALD WAYNE MESHELL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 7, 2005 

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. 

d1121 

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. 

November 29, 2005 

Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The J. Jill Group, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended
March 27, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned officers certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the
signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/GORDON R. COOKEGordon R. Cooke
President, Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board of Directors (Principal Executive Officer)Date: May 6, 2004 |  | /s/OLGA L. CONLEYOlga L. Conley
Executive Vice President/
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)Date: May 6, 2004
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The
Board of Directors
Ditech Networks, Inc.

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-137679, 333-133857,
333-129983, 333-126302, 333-126192, 333-120278, 333-110821, 333-100107, 333-82624, 333-70224,
333-60882, 333-30044, and 333-86311) of our report dated July 14, 2010 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of
Ditech Networks, Inc. as of and for the years ended April 30, 2010 and April 30, 2009, which appears in Ditech Networks, Inc's Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ BURR PILGER MAYER, INC.

San
Jose, California
July 14, 2010

---



QuickLinks
Myrna DIAZ, petitioner, v. NEW JERSEY.

No. 18-5662.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division denied.
In Re Todd BRITTON-HARR, petitioner.

No. 18-5683.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000910678
<NAME> PINNACLE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       8,747,970
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,111,756
<TRADING-ASSETS>                            86,340,065
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    133,321,614
<ALLOWANCE>                                  7,884,692
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             241,785,990
<DEPOSITS>                                 205,965,612
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,276,380
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,680,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,863,997
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             241,785,990
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,499,066
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,407,580
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,906,646
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,830,682
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,831,151
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,075,495
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   83,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,075
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,739,725
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,710,978
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,209,978
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,209,978
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     8.7
<LOANS-NON>                                    201,976
<LOANS-PAST>                                 2,281,819
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               235,515
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              2,714,811
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,842,152
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   49,223
<RECOVERIES>                                     8,763
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,884,692
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           343,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      1,541,692
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1




                              QUALITY DINING, INC.

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


In connection with the Annual Report of Quality Dining, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending October 27, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel B.
Fitzpatrick, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.



/s/ DANIEL B. FITZPATRICK
------------------------------------
Daniel B. Fitzpatrick
Chairman of the Board, President and
Chief Executive Officer
January 24, 2003













                                       1
Javier VEGA-OROZCO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6014.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Donald C. MARRO, petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM.

No. 18-381.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ONHEALTH
NETWORK COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED
JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                          5,383
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   4,379
<ALLOWANCES>                                      520
<INVENTORY>                                        22
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               26,496
<PP&E>                                         11,258
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,005
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 38,524
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          33,600
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          247
<OTHER-SE>                                      4,629
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   38,524
<SALES>                                         6,347
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                6,347
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               46,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  111
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              9,203
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (48,776)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (48,776)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (48,776)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (2.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.05)


</TABLE>
## F IFTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D22- 439 LT Case No. 2021

- 000425 -FD-A

_____________________________ C ERROW M ATTHEWS , Appella nt,
v. B ELENA N ORTON , L INDSEY N ORTON , AND F LOYD B ENNETT , Appellees
.

_____________________________ On a ppeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County. Alicia R. Washington, Judge. Charles A. Esposito, Palm Coast, for Appellant. No Appe arance for Appellees. [Date]
P ER C URIAM . A FFIRMED . E DWAR DS , C.J., P RATT and E ISNAUGLE , J J., concur.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7465

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH ABDUL HENDRIX,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:10-cr-00067-MR-WCM-2)

Submitted: December 21, 2020 Decided: January 15, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Abdul Hendrix, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Abdul Hendrix seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion 

for reconsideration of his motion for compassionate release. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan 

Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it 

has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the 

claims raised in Hendrix’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of his compassionate 

release motion. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, the court did not address Hendrix’s assertion 

that he had exhausted his remedies under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1), nor did the court address

whether immediate release was appropriate under that section, instead addressing only 

Hendrix’s alternative request to serve the remainder of his sentence in a halfway house or 

on home confinement. We conclude that the order Hendrix seeks to appeal is neither a 

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of the 

unresolved claims. Id. at 699. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED
Ex. 32.1 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer of MetaSolv, Inc. pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



CEO Certification



I, T. Curtis Holmes, Jr., Chief Executive
Officer of MetaSolv, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003 as of March 12, 2004 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Report) by the Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.



I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|                            
|----------------------------
|                            
|/s/    T. Curtis Holmes,
Jr.
|Name: T. Curtis Holmes, Jr. 
|Chief Executive Officer     
|March 12, 2004
The HONORABLE GARY A. FENNER, United States District Judge for the * Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation. The HONORABLE MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Uni ted States District Judge for the 1 District of Minnesota. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1377

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Jerry Alan Morey, * * [PUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 10, 1997 Filed: July 22, 1997

___________ Before LOKEN and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and FENNER, District Judge. *

___________ PER CURIAM. Jerry Morey pleaded guilty to theft of mail by a postal employee. The district court sentenced him to eight months in prison and three years of supervised release. 1 Morey now appeals two special conditions of his supervised release. As he did not-2-

ob jectto these conditions at sentencing, we are limited to plain error review. Se e United States v. Iversen , 90 F.3d 1340, 1343 (8th Cir. 1996).
Fi rst, Morey argues that requiring him to “participate, as instructed by th e probation officer, in a program . . . for treatment of narcotic addiction or dru g dependency ” improperly transfers to the probation officer the duty of the court t o establish periodic drug testing, one of the conditio ns mandated in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). We dis agree. Section 3583(d) authorizes the district court to impose discretionary supervised release condi tions. Morey is a long-term drug addict who stole to feed his addiction. His sentence mandates five hundred hours of drug treatment while he is in pris on. Giving the probation officer authority to require additional drug treatmen t during supervised release is an appropriate discretionary condition t hat goes beyond the drug testin g mandated by § 3583(d). Similar conditions have been imposed in prio r cases. See United States v. Schoenrock , 868 F.2d 289, 290 n.3 (8th Cir. 1989).
Secon d, Morey argues that the condition forbidding him to own or possess a firear m while on supervised release is invalid because it is unrelated to his offense
. However, § 3583(d) mandates the explicit c ondition that he not commit a crime during supervisedrelease. Morey is now a convicted felon who may not lawfully possess a firearm. See18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). By clarifying a portion of the ma ndatory condition that he not commit a crime, this condition would seem to benefit Morey. In any event, its imposition cannot be plain error. See U.S.S.G. § 5B1.4(b)(14). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
SEALED APPELLANT, petitioner, v. SEALED APPELLEE.

No. 18-9241.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Leon GILLS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8938.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.
Ricky Wayne WHITE, petitioner, v. ARKANSAS.

No. 18-5994.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

*391Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas denied.