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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

 Plaintiff,

v.

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. et 

al,

T-MOBILE US, INC., ET AL.

AT&T, INC., ET AL.

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NO. 2:23-CV-00352-JRG-RSP

CASE NO. 2:23-CV-00379-JRG-RSP

CASE NO. 2:23-CV-00397-JRG-RSP

Markman Hearing

MAG. JUDGE ROY PAYNE PRESIDING

November 19, 2024

OPEN: 9:04 am ADJOURN: 10:38 am

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF: See attached

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS: See attached

TECHNICAL ADVISOR: Mike Paul

LAW CLERK: Greg Saltz

COURT REPORTER: Shelly Holmes

COURTROOM DEPUTY: Becky Andrews

Court opened. Case called. Andrea Fair introduced co-counsel and announced ready. Deron 

Dacus introduced co-counsel and announced ready.

The Court heard argument on a term by term basis. Philip Wang and Kris Davis presented 

argument on behalf of Plaintiff. Celine Crowson, Kate Dominguez, Rob Vincent and Kevin 

Hess presented argument on behalf of Defendants.

The Court took the claim construction matters under submission.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 110 Filed 11/19/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:

8313
AO 120 (Rev. 08/10) 

TO: Mail Stop 8

Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

REPORT ON THE

FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN

ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR

TRADEMARK

In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been

filed in the U.S. District Court on the following

G Trademarks or G Patents. ( G the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):

DOCKET NO. DATE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:

DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY

G Amendment G Answer G Cross Bill G Other Pleading

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:

DECISION/JUDGEMENT

CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERK DATE

Copy 1—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director

Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy

Eastern District of Texas

✔

2:23-cv-335 7/18/2023 Eastern District of Texas

Patent Armory Inc. Bose Corporation

7,130,430 10/31/2006 Patent Armory Inc.

Patent Armory Inc.

Patent Armory Inc.

Patent Armory Inc.

Patent Armory Inc.

Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all

claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant in the above-captioned case are

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

ch

Case 2:23-cv-00335-JRG Document 9 Filed 08/09/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 66
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ANTONIO SORIA BARRIGA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73871

Agency No. A097-867-722

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Jose Antonio Soria Barriga, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,

FILED

JUN 22 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-73871

including claims of due process violations. Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d

1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for

review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that

Soria Barriga did not demonstrate “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to

a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.

2005). Because the hardship issue is dispositive, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D),

we do not reach Soria Barriga’s contentions regarding his continuous physical

presence.

Soria Barriga’s equal protection contention regarding the rights of his United

States citizen children is not colorable. See Urbano de Malaluan v. INS, 577 F.2d

589, 594 (9th Cir. 1978). Soria Barriga’s due process claims are not persuasive. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
```
 
 
IN DELIVERY MONTH EUA - GREEN EXCHANGE                               Code-006GEC
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 07/24/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1000 EUA)                              OPEN INTEREST:       89,683
COMMITMENTS
  11,341      283    2,915   75,427   86,485   89,683   89,683        0        0

CHANGES FROM 07/17/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      4,835)
  -2,502        6     -687    8,025    5,516    4,836    4,835       -1        0

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    12.6      0.3      3.3     84.1     96.4    100.0    100.0      0.0      0.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       20)
       3        3        4        9       13       14       18
```

----

Updated July 27, 2012
RESIDENTS AGAINST FLOODING, et al., petitioners, v. REINVESTMENT ZONE NUMBER SEVENTEEN, CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS, et al.

No. 18-535.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Sororazam BETHUNE, petitioner, v. MTA/LONG ISLAND BUS, et al.

No. 17-8000.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 24, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01-12-01029-CV

Union Pacific Railroad Company 

v.

Estate of Geronimo Gutierrez, deceased, and Amelia Gutierrez and Adrian Gutierrez, Individually 

in their Capacities as Dependents of Geronimo Gutierrez, deceased, and Amelia Gutierrez, in her 

capacity as Administratrix of the Estate of Geronimo Gutierrez

NO. 380337401 IN THE PROBATE COURT NO 4 OF HARRIS COUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

MT FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

MT FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

MT FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

MT FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

MT FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

MT FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$5.00

$10.00

$5.00

$5.00

$5.00

$10.00

$5.00

$10.00

$5.00

$10.00

$5.00

$10.00

$5.00

$10.00

$5.00

05/05/2014

03/26/2014

01/28/2014

08/16/2013

07/12/2013

07/12/2013

06/26/2013

05/31/2013

05/31/2013

05/08/2013

05/01/2013

04/05/2013

03/01/2013

03/01/2013

02/04/2013

02/04/2013

01/30/2013

01/30/2013

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

APE

APE

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

APE

APE

APE

APE

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

APE

APE
MT FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

REPORTER'S RECORD

E-TXGOV FEE

CLK RECORD

E-TXGOV FEE

FILING

$10.00

$5.00

$8,598.00

$5.00

$686.00

$5.00

$175.00

01/30/2013

01/30/2013

01/04/2013

12/17/2012

12/04/2012

11/26/2012

11/26/2012

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

E-PAID

PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

APE

APE

ANT

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are 

$9,619.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby 

certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my 

hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the 

First District of Texas, this October 30, 2015.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

STA GROUP LLC,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.,

 Defendant.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00030-JRG-RSP

ORDER

Counterclaim Defendants Dillon Kane Group LLC and Instant Connect Software 

LLC previously filed a Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims ("the Motion"). (Dkt. No. 53.) 

Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 106) in which he 

recommended denying the Motion. Due to no objections being filed and because of the 

reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Recommendation is 

ADOPTED. It is therefore ORDERED that the Motion (Dkt. No. 53) is DENIED. 

.

____________________________________

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of March, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-00030-JRG-RSP Document 112 Filed 03/27/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 2438
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
registrant's unaudited consolidated financial statements for the six month
period ended December 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
those financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY>                      U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  JUL-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                           6,601,402
<SECURITIES>                                     1,679,416
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,141,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,020,313
<PP&E>                                           1,449,446
<DEPRECIATION>                                     789,698
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,714,787
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,482,710
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                          7,518
<COMMON>                                            72,438
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,224,559
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,714,787
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,759,591
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,129,966
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  25,861
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,209,847)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,209,847)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,209,847)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.58)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 11.1


                               PACKAGED ICE, INC.
                     COMPUTATION OF EARNING PER COMMON SHARE
                          AND COMMON SHARE EQUIVALENTS



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               1997             1996             1995
                                                            -----------      -----------      -----------
<S>                                                          <C>             <C>              <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding                    3,600,109        2,826,371        2,682,261
                                                            ===========      ===========      ===========
   Basic Loss Per Share                                     $     (2.40)     $     (0.35)     $     (0.26)
                                                            ===========      ===========      ===========

DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding                    3,600,109        2,826,371        2,682,261
Shares Issuable from Assumed Conversion of
   Common Share Options and Warrants                            774,787          272,822          174,293
   Convertible Demand Notes                                       5,814            8,550             --
                                                            ===========      ===========      ===========
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding, as Adjusted       4,380,710        3,107,743        2,856,554
                                                            ===========      ===========      ===========
   Diluted Loss Per Share                                   $     (1.93)     $     (0.32)     $     (0.24)
                                                            ===========      ===========      ===========

EARNINGS FOR BASIC AND DILUTED COMPUTATION
Net Income                                                  $(8,438,636)     $  (990,432)     $  (688,482)

Preferred Shares Dividend                                      (198,630)
                                                            -----------      -----------      -----------
Net Income to Common Shareholders
     (Basic Earnings Per Share Computation)                  (8,637,266)        (990,432)        (688,482)
Interest Expense of Convertible Demand Notes                        505            6,236
Preferred Shares Dividend                                       198,630
                                                            -----------      -----------      -----------
Net Loss to Common Shareholders, as adjusted (Diluted
       Earnings Per Share Computation)                      $(8,438,131)     $  (984,196)     $  (688,482)
                                                            ===========      ===========      ===========
</TABLE>


This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K; although it is
contrary to paragraphs 13 through 16 of the Financial Accounting Standards
Board's Statement of Financial Standard No. 128,
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Thomas P. Maun, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Micro Component Technology, Inc.:

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisquarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15) for the registrant and we have:

 

a) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation.

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function):

 

a) allsignificant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b) any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.

 

 
| Dated:   August 11, 2003 | By:                                                           | /s/ Thomas  P. Maun |   |
|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|--------|
|                               | Thomas P.  Maun  Chief Financial Officer  Chief Accounting Officer |

 

1

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: Z.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: T.B. :

:

:

:

: No. 148 EAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: T.B. :

:

:

:

: No. 149 EAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of July, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Roger Clay SWAIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5674.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

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



                                  EXHIBIT 32.1


                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
Hi-Shear Technology Corporation for the year ended May 31, 2005, I, George W.
Trahan, President, Chief Executive Officer and Co-chairman of Hi-Shear
Technology Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, that:

         (1) such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31, 2005,
         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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
         the year ended May 31, 2005, fairly presents, in all material respects,
         the financial condition and results of operations of Hi-Shear
         Technology Corporation.


                           /s/ George W. Trahan
                           --------------------------------------
                           George W. Trahan
                           President, Chief Executive Officer and Co-chairman

September 13, 2005

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 Hi-Shear Technology Corporation
and will be retained by Hi-Shear Technology Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 6:23-cv-00386

Kevin James Kohute,

Plaintiff,

v.

Sheriff Larry Smith,

Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff Kevin James Kohute, proceeding pro se, filed this civil 

rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he was an inmate of the 

Smith County Jail. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

On October 17, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice due to 

plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order to satisfy the fee 

requirement and to keep the court apprised of his address. Doc. 7. A 

copy of the report was mailed to plaintiff, but it was returned as undeliverable with a stamp indicating that he is no longer at his previous address in the jail. Doc. 8. Plaintiff did not file written objections

and has not notified the court of his new address.

When no party objects to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for clear error. See Douglass 

v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satisfied that it 

contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. This case is dismissed without prejudice.

So ordered by the court on January 17, 2024.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00386-JCB-KNM Document 9 Filed 01/17/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 18
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 12/18/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      163,327
COMMITMENTS
  41,834   15,497   20,171   82,004  104,485  144,009  140,153   19,317   23,174

CHANGES FROM 12/11/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      1,051)
  -7,317    3,138   -1,451    9,542      722      774    2,409      278   -1,358

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    25.6      9.5     12.4     50.2     64.0     88.2     85.8     11.8     14.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      183)
      52       31       35       61       82      131      134
```

----

Updated December 21, 2012
H. R. 2307

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

An Act

To designate the building of the United States Postal Service located at 5 Cedar

Street in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Thomas J. Brown Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The building of the United States Postal Service located at

5 Cedar Street in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, shall be known and

designated as the ‘‘Thomas J. Brown Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the building referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Thomas

J. Brown Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.