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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

AX WIRELESS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACER INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00041-JRG-RSP

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF INTERNATIONAL LETTERS OF REQUEST

(LETTER ROGATORY)

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel comes Plaintiff AX Wireless LLC 

(“AX Wireless”), who respectfully petitions this Court for the issuance of a Letter of Request 

(Letter Rogatory) in the form annexed, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2)(B) and addressed to the 

appropriate judicial authority in Taiwan, requesting that the Taiwanese Court cause to be served 

upon the Defendant Acer Inc., the Summons, Complaint for Patent Infringement (with Exhibit 1 

and Appendices A-B), and Civil Cover Sheet filed in the present action. AX Wireless requests 

that after this Court has signed the Letter of Request, two Exemplified Copies of the Letter be 

returned to counsel for forwarding, along with the attached documentation, to the United States 

Department of State, Office of American Citizen Services. The State Department will oversee 

transmission of the Letter of Request to Taiwan through diplomatic channels as provided in 28 

U.S.C. § 1781(a)(2), as well as its presentation to the requested court in Taiwan. 

AX Wireless stands ready to reimburse this Court and/or the United States Department of 

Case 2:23-cv-00041-JRG-RSP Document 8 Filed 03/10/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 83
2

State for any expenses incurred in connection with the execution of the Letter Rogatory and will 

remit a cashier’s check to the United States Department of States to cover the incurred expenses. 

Date: March 10, 2023 /s/ Elizabeth L. DeRieux

Elizabeth L. DeRieux

Email: ederieux@capshawlaw.com

CAPSHAW DERIEUX, LLP

TEXAS BAR NO. 05770585

114 E. Commerce Ave.

Gladewater, Texas 75647

(903) 845-5770

Andrew Y. Choung (admitted in E.D. Texas) 

Email: achoung@nixonpeabody.com

Jennifer Hayes (pro hac vice forthcoming)

Email: jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com

Joshua J. Pollack (admitted in E.D. Texas)

Email: jpollack@nixonpeabody.com

Desmond Jui (pro hac vice forthcoming)

Email: djui@nixonpeabody.com

Nixon Peabody LLP

300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4100

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Telephone: (213) 629-6000

Attorneys for Plaintiff AX Wireless LLC

Case 2:23-cv-00041-JRG-RSP Document 8 Filed 03/10/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 84
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BEAUMONT DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

NAOMI ANN PEREZ

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NUMBER 1:23-CR-46

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The court referred a petition alleging violations of supervised release conditions to the 

Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for 

consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The court has received and

considered the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along 

with the record, pleadings and all available evidence.

At the close of the revocation hearing, U.S. Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn 

recommended:

1. finding the Defendant violated the first allegation in the petition that she failed to follow 

a standard condition of release; 

2. revoking the Defendant’s supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583; and

3. sentencing the defendant to a term of 6 months’ imprisonment to run concurrently with 

the revocation imprisonment sentence imposed in 1:23-CR-45, with no supervised 

release to follow. Perez requested to serve her term of imprisonment at the Federal 

Correctional Institute in Bryan, Texas, if the Bureau of Prisons can accommodate such 

request. 

At the close of the revocation hearing, the Defendant, defense counsel and counsel for 

the Government each signed a standard form waiving their right to object to the proposed 

Case 1:23-cr-00046-MJT Document 6 Filed 06/08/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 56
2

findings and recommendations contained in the magistrate judge’s report, consenting to 

revocation of supervised release and imposition of the sentence recommended. The Defendant 

also waived her right to be present with counsel and to speak at sentencing before the court 

imposes the recommended sentence. 

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are 

correct and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. It is therefore

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition is GRANTED and Naomi Ann Perez’s 

supervised release is REVOKED. 

Judgment and commitment will be entered separately, in accordance with the magistrate 

judge’s recommendations.

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 8th day of June, 2023.

Case 1:23-cr-00046-MJT Document 6 Filed 06/08/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 57
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 32067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11366]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE


SJI Board of Directors Meeting, Notice

AGENCY: State Justice Institute.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, June 13, 
2022 at 10:00 a.m. ET. The purpose of this meeting is to consider grant 
applications for the 3rd quarter of FY 2022, and other business.

ADDRESSES: State Justice Institute Headquarters, 12700 Fair Lakes 
Circle, Suite 340, Fairfax, VA, 22033.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Mattiello, Executive 
Director, State Justice Institute, 12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340, 
Fairfax, VA 22033, 703-660-4979, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d2e2223392c2e390d3e2724632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8deee2e3f9eceef9cdfee7e4a3eae2fb">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 10702(f)

Jonathan D. Mattiello,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2022-11366 Filed 5-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-SC-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Paul E. NUNU, Petitioner, v. Nancy Nunu RISK, et al.

No. 19-713.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District denied.
Jeremy James HENDRICKS, petitioner, v. Matt BINGHAM, et al.

No. 18M61.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Paul E. Freiman, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Neurobiological Technologies, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



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



4. As the registrants only certifying
officer, I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to
be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report
any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. As the registrants only certifying officer, I have disclosed, based on the most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



September 29, 2003



/s/    PAUL E.
FREIMANPaul E. FreimanPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officerand Principal Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,375
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,748
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,089
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,698
<PP&E>                                           3,192
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,827
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           166
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,526
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,321
<SALES>                                          5,332
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,776
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,441
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    491
<INCOME-TAX>                                       187
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                304
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       304
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02




</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Trimeris, Inc. (the Company) for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Martin A. Mattingly, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ MARTIN A. MATTINGLY
|Martin A. Mattingly    
|Chief Executive Officer

May 12, 2008

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 6:23-cv-00057

Stephen Landry,

Plaintiff,

v.

Lonnie Townsend et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff Stephen Landry, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the above-styled and numbered civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love. Thereafter, defendants Elizabeth Carmichael and Marciela Rendon filed a motion to dismiss all of plaintiff’s 

claims based on qualified immunity and failure to state a claim. Doc. 

15. On December 18, 2023, Judge Love issued a report and recommendation (Doc. 20), recommending that the motion be granted,

and that plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice. To date, no 

objections have been filed, and the time period for doing so has 

passed. 

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. For the reasons stated in the report, defendants’ motion to 

dismiss (Doc. 15) is granted. This action is dismissed with prejudice 

on the basis of qualified immunity and failure to state a claim.

Case 6:23-cv-00057-JCB-JDL Document 22 Filed 01/24/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 73
So ordered by the court on January 24, 2024.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00057-JCB-JDL Document 22 Filed 01/24/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 74
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.35(c)
 
                                AMENDMENT NO. 2
                                      TO
                            VASTAR RESOURCES, INC.
                     EXECUTIVE SUPPLEMENTARY SAVINGS PLAN
                           __________________________

     Pursuant to the power of amendment reserved therein, the Vastar Resources,
Inc. Executive Supplementary Savings Plan (the "Plan") is amended effective as
of January 1, 1999.

Section 6 of the Plan is amended to read as follows:

     "SECTION 6.  AMOUNT OF BENEFIT

     6.1  With respect to an Employee who makes the maximum permissible elective
          deferral under the Vastar Resources, Inc. Capital Accumulation Plan
          II, or its successor plan, during the Plan Year, the amount of an
          Employee's benefit for each Plan year shall be equal to the maximum
          percentage of the amount of such Employee's Base Pay that would have
          been contributed by the Company under the Vastar Resources, Inc.
          Capital Accumulation Plan II assuming that there were no limitations
          on such contributions imposed by Sections 401(a)(17) and 415 of the
          Code during the Plan Year."

     6.2  With respect to an Employee who does not make the maximum permissible
          elective deferral under the Vastar Resources, Inc. Capital
          Accumulation Plan II, or its successor plan, during the Plan Year, the
          amount of an Employee's benefit for each Plan Year shall be zero.

     Executed this 17th day of December, 1998.


ATTEST:                                    VASTAR RESOURCES, INC.



/s/ Jonathan D. Edelfelt              By: /s/ Jeffrey M. Bender
--------------------------------         ----------------------------  
JONATHAN D. EDELFELT                     JEFFREY M. BENDER
Associate Secretary                      Vice President
                                         Human Resources
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 9, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41706 Summary Calendar

L.C. GARNER MATHIS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-02-CV-40

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * L. C. Garner Mathis, Jr. (Mathis), federal prisoner # 26925- 077, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Mathis claims that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) erred in failing to award him full credit towards his federal sentence for time served in state prison after he was sentenced in federal court. Mathis argues that his time in state prison should be credited to hisNo. 02-41706 -2- federal sentence because his state parole was revoked when he was arrested for a federal charge. Mathis also argues that he is entitled to credit on his federal sentence because a federal detainer placed on him while he was in state prison prevented his release from state custody. The Attorney General, through the BOP, determines what credit, if any, will be awarded to prisoners for time spent in custody prior to the commencement of their sentences. See United States v. Wilson , 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), the BOP may not award Mathis credit toward his term of imprisonment for any time he spent in official detention prior to the commencement of his federal sentence that was credited against another sentence. See United States v. Dovalina , 711 F.2d 737, 740 (5th Cir. 1983); United States v. Chaplin , 451 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1971). Mathis was awarded state credit already for the time he spent in detention prior to the commencement of his federal sentence. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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 Gaming Partners International Corporation for the year ended
December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Gerard P. Charlier, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and David W.
Grimes, 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 knowledge:



|                     |  |                                           |  |                                                                                
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | GAMING PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
|Date: March 30, 2009 |  | By:                                       |  | /s/ GERARD P. CHARLIER Gerard P. Charlier President and Chief Executive Officer
|Date: March 30, 2009 |  | By:                                       |  | /s/ DAVID W. GRIMES David W. Grimes Chief Financial Officer                    

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 be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or
the Securities Act of 1933, 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.

---



QuickLinks
`DTCC Repo-US Treasury <30 YR - NYSE LIFFE - NYPC                     Code-045L2T
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 05/28/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000)                            OPEN INTEREST:       55,502
COMMITMENTS
   1,557    7,441    3,037   50,853   44,975   55,447   55,453       55       49

CHANGES FROM 05/21/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        683)
    -276      392      653      326     -224      703      821      -20     -138

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     2.8     13.4      5.5     91.6     81.0     99.9     99.9      0.1      0.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       46)
       5       10        8       22       27       32       42`

---

Updated May 31, 2013
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., and ENDO 

PAR INNOVATION COMPANY, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

C.A. No. 2:23cv-00399 

PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, Plaintiffs state the following: Endo Par Innovation 

Company, LLC, a non-governmental corporate entity, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Par 

Pharmaceutical, Inc. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., a non-governmental corporate entity, is a whollyowned, indirect subsidiary of Endo International PLC. Endo International PLC is a publicly held 

company that has no parent corporation and is the only publicly held company that owns 10% or 

more of the stock of Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Endo Par Innovation Company, LLC. 

Case 2:23-cv-00399-JRG-RSP Document 3 Filed 09/01/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 184
2 

Dated: September 1, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

__/s/ Martin J. Black by permission Andrea L. 

Fair ______ 

Martin J. Black – LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert D. Rhoad 

Sharon K. Gagliardi 

Brian M. Goldberg 

Luke M. Reilly 

Daniel R. Roberts 

DECHERT LLP

Cira Centre

2929 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19104 

Tel: (215) 994-4000 

martin.black@dechert.com 

robert.rhoad@dechert.com 

sharon.gagliardi@dechert.com 

brian.goldberg@dechert.com 

luke.reilly@dechert.com 

daniel.roberts@dechert.com 

Jonathan D.J. Loeb, Ph.D. 

DECHERT LLP

2400 W. El Camino Real, Suite 700 

Mountain View, CA 94040-1499 

Tel: (650) 813-4995 

jonathan.loeb@dechert.com 

OF COUNSEL:

Andrea L. Fair

Texas Bar No. 24078488 

WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC

1507 Bill Owens Pkwy. 

Longview, TX 75604 

Tel: (903) 757-6400 

andrea@wsfirm.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Par Pharmaceutical, 

Inc. and Endo Par Innovation Company, LLC

 

Case 2:23-cv-00399-JRG-RSP Document 3 Filed 09/01/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 185
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on all counsel of record by 

email on this 1st day of September, 2023. 

 /s/ Andrea L. Fair 

 Andrea L. Fair 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00399-JRG-RSP Document 3 Filed 09/01/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 186