alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 99-30894 -1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-30894 Summary Calendar

JOHN M. ROPER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus EXXON CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-829-C

-------------------- April 18, 2000 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * John M. Roper appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment against him on a complaint he brought against his former employer, Exxon Corporation. Having considered the issue sua sponte , we conclude that the district court’s exercise of federal jurisdiction over the complaint was proper. See Giles v. NYLCare Health Plans, Inc. , 172 F.3d 332, 336-37 (5th Cir. 1999). Roper argues that Exxon violated L A . R EV . S TAT . A NN . 23:631 by failing to pay him for six days of illness occurring during a vacation. We agree with the district court that Roper never hadNo. 99-30894 -2- a vested right to payment for those days because he never provided Exxon with the required medical certification of illness for the days. See Beard v. Summit Inst. for Pulmonary Med. & Rehabilitation, Inc. , 707 So. 2d 1233, 1235 (La. 1998) (holding that an employer is obligated to pay only amounts “due under the terms of employment”). Roper argues that Exxon is obliged to pay him penalty wages and attorney’s fees under L A . R EV . S TAT . A NN . 23:632. Because Exxon owed Roper nothing for the six uncertified days of illness, no penalties or fees are due him for those days. In addition, we conclude that summary judgment against Roper was proper as to six days of illness that were properly certified. Roper’s principal piece of evidence, a pay stub showing that he had reported disability days during vacation, is not probative of when Exxon exercised its discretion under the terms of employment to reclassify Roper’s vacation time. Finally, Roper argues that Exxon should have made a seven percent contribution to his thrift fund account on all amounts it paid him at his discharge in lieu of vacation. The district court held, and we agree, that this is an Employee Retirement Income Security Act claim governed by the terms of Exxon’s Thrift Plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a). We also agree that Roper presented no evidence that Exxon’s Thrift Plan involved contributions for vacation days.

AFFIRMED.
Eddie HAMPTON, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 18-6635.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 11734]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Raphael—The Power of Renaissance Images: The Dresden Tapestries and Their Impact” at the Columbus Museum of Art, Columbus, Ohio, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the                               ( print page 31604)                            national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.                

Stacy E. White,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2022-11154 Filed 5-23-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER TO FILE BRIEF

Appellate case name: John Furnace, Jr. v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-11-00481-CR

Trial court case number: 63237

Trial court: 412th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County

On October 11, 2012, we ordered that appellant file a brief within 30 days. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 37.3(c), 38.6. Appellant did not respond. On December 5, 2012, we notified appellant, 

through his retained counsel, Abraham Fisch, that a brief had not been filed, and we required a 

response within 10 days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). Again, appellant did not respond. 

On January 15, 2013, we abated the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court for a 

hearing, as required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b), to determine whether appellant still 

wished to prosecute the appeal, whether Counsel Fisch had abandoned the appeal by failing to 

file a brief, and whether appellant is indigent and should have counsel appointed. See id. 

On January 31, 2013, the trial court filed a supplemental record containing its findings. 

We order the appeal reinstated. 

The trial court’s order indicates that it was unable to make the findings we requested 

because, although noticed to appear, neither Counsel Fisch nor appellant appeared at the hearing. 

It is ORDERED that appellant’s counsel, Abraham Fisch, file in this Court, no later 

than March 19, 2013, a brief on appellant’s behalf that complies with Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 38.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. No motions for extension of time will be entertained 

absent extraordinary circumstances. If Abraham Fisch does not file a brief as ordered, we 

will issue an order directing the trial court to issue notice and service of citation against 

Abraham Fisch, commanding him to appear before it and to show cause why he should not 

be held in contempt. 

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 28, 2013
In Re Sandra RUMANEK, petitioner.

No. 18-6500.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

AT&T INC. et al,

 Defendants.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP

Lead Case

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-00398-JRG-RSP

Member Case

ORDER

Before the Court is the Notice of Dismissal (“Notice”) filed by Headwater Research LLC 

(“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 27.) In the Notice, Plaintiff represents that all claims asserted against 

Defendant AT&T, Inc. in lead case 2:23-cv-00397 and member case 2:23-cv-00398 are voluntarily 

dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Id. at 1.) 

In light of the Notice, which the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, and 

pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims and causes of action in lead case 2:23-cv-00397 

and member case 2:23-cv-00398 asserted against AT&T, Inc., only, are DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All pending requests for relief asserted between Plaintiff and 

AT&T, Inc. in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to MAINTAIN AS OPEN the above-captioned cases as 

other defendants remain.

So Ordered this

Dec 8, 2023

Case 2:23-cv-00398-JRG-RSP Document 26 Filed 12/08/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 218
David Errol WILLOCK, petitioner, v. William SPERFSLAGE, Warden.

No. 18-6831.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32

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 on Form 10-K of Paul-Son Gaming Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Gérard Charlier, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Melody Sullivan, as Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his or her
knowledge:



|                     |  | PAUL-SON GAMING CORPORATION
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date: March 23, 2004 |  | By:                        
|Date: March 23, 2004 |  | By:                        

This
certification is being furnished to the SEC as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by the of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided by the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---
United States District Court

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

NELSON WILLIS

V.

ADAM M. ARON

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23CV732 

JUDGE MAZZANT/JUDGE JOHNSON

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, 

this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 

On August 6, 2024, the report of the Magistrate Judge (the “Report”) (Dkt. #88) was entered 

containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations regarding Defendant Adam M. Aron’s 

Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and Brief in Support (the “Motion to 

Dismiss”) (Dkt. #10). The Report (Dkt. #88) recommends that the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #10) 

be granted and Plaintiff Nelson Willis’s claims against Defendant be dismissed with prejudice. 

On August 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed objections (the “Objections”) (Dkt. #94) to the Report (Dkt. 

#88). 

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Objections (Dkt. #94) and is of 

the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the 

Objections (Dkt. #94) are without merit as to the ultimate findings of the Magistrate Judge. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Objections (Dkt. #94) are OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge’s 

Report (Dkt. #88) is ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. #10) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s 

claims against Defendant are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

Case 4:23-cv-00732-ALM-KPJ Document 103 Filed 08/23/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1573
2 

Case 4:23-cv-00732-ALM-KPJ Document 103 Filed 08/23/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1574
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 05/29/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       61,963
COMMITMENTS
   6,940    3,046        0   50,848   56,282   57,788   59,328    4,175    2,635

CHANGES FROM 05/22/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        839)
    -139      451        0      790     -269      651      182      188      657

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    11.2      4.9      0.0     82.1     90.8     93.3     95.7      6.7      4.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       62)
       7        4        0       30       32       37       36
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 05/29/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       97,257
COMMITMENTS
  16,039    6,740    1,016   70,505   83,579   87,560   91,335    9,697    5,922

CHANGES FROM 05/22/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        411)
    -918    1,507       77      610     -802     -231      782      642     -371

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    16.5      6.9      1.0     72.5     85.9     90.0     93.9     10.0      6.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       90)
      21       11        3       35       37       57       50
```

----

Updated June 5, 2012
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:23-cv-00449-JRG Document 18-2 Filed 05/17/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 653
Job Title Position Appointed Name Appt.Grp. Status Reminder

Director 30/01/2013 BROWN, William Tudor

Director 17/05/2005 GRABE, William Otto

Director 18/09/2015 ORR, Gordon Robert Halyburton

Director 18/08/2023 THORNTON, John Lawson

Director 20/06/2022 WANG, Hsiueh Hong Cher

Director 22/02/2019 WOO, Chin Wan Raymond

Director 20/06/2022 XUE, Lan

Director 15/05/2020 YANG, Lan

Director 16/12/1997 YANG, Yuanqing

Director 03/11/2011 ZHAO, John Huan

Director 30/04/2005 ZHU, Linan

Secretary 01/12/2022 Lam, Ngan Ling

Current Appointments

Case 2:23-cv-00449-JRG Document 18-2 Filed 05/17/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 654
Declaration of Randall Garteiser 1

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

VALVE CORPORATION,

GEARBOX SOFTWARE, L.L.C.,

Defendants.

 CASE NO. 2:23-cv-419-JRG

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DECLARATION OF RANDALL GARTEISER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S 

OPPOSITION TO VALVE CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER 

RULE 12(B)(3) 

I, Randall T. Garteiser, declare as follows:

1. I am a partner at the law firm, Garteiser Honea, PLLC. We represent 

Plaintiff Symbology Innovations, LLC in this lawsuit. I have personal knowledge of 

the information contained in this declaration and can testify to the truth of these 

statements.

2. As Counsel for Patent Asset Management, LLC subsidiaries 

Symbology Innovations, LLC; Quantum Technology Innovations, LLC; and Social 

Positioning Input Systems, LLC, I asked Valve Corporation’s Counsel if it would 

agree to not assert a licensing defense in this case due a licensing defense. Valve 

Corporation refused to stipulate that it would not raise a licensing defense in writing 

via email. Thus, as counsel for Plaintiff, I felt obligated to amend to add this waiver 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 63-2 Filed 04/22/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1545
Declaration of Randall Garteiser 2

argument as yet another basis for venue being proper in this district along with 

personal jurisdiction. 

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Global 

Settlement and Licensing Agreement with the just the amount of payment redacted, 

that I downloaded on or about April 10, 2024. In another case, I noticed that Discord, 

Inc. had filed a copy of the GSALA with no redactions other than the amount of the 

payment made under the agreement. In the past, after not filing the GSALA under 

seal, Valve Corporation’s counsel reached out and obtained an agreement with 

counsel for at least Leigh Rothschild and Patent Asset Management, LLC to file the 

confidential GSALA agreement publicly with just the amount redacted. As such, 

Plaintiff attaches that publicly available version hereto as Exhibit 1, which Valve 

Corporation previously filed publicly in the Western District of Washington. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of 

America on that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: April 22, 2024 Respectfully Submitted

/s/ Randall Garteiser

Randall Garteiser

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 63-2 Filed 04/22/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1546
Miriam GUTIERREZ, petitioner, v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General.

No. 18-558.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

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

Case 2:23-cv-00370-JRG Document 1-2 Filed 08/16/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 22
In Re Arthur O. ARMSTRONG, petitioner.

No. 17-8710.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LTD., petitioner, v. Brian NEWTON.

No. 18-389.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 11, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted.
**Exhibit 32.2****Section 1350 Certifications**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Strategic Diagnostics Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, based on suchofficer’s knowledge, that: (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period endedJune 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing.        Date: August 13, 2007 /s/ Stanley A. Fronczkowski   Stanley A. Fronczkowski   Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000911167
<NAME>                        Ariel Corporation

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                         6,152,272
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,757,392
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,565,866
<INVENTORY>                                    1,978,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               12,572,310
<PP&E>                                         5,229,116
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,052,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 18,432,274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,278,854
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       9,760,150
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,113,748
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   18,432,274
<SALES>                                        8,694,254
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               8,694,254
<CGS>                                          3,654,950
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,654,950
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               14,229,362
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             411,950
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,258,737)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,258,737)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,258,737)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,258,737)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.95)



</TABLE>