alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COUNTY OF SONOMA, CALIFORNIA, et al., Petitioners, v. Rafael Mateos SANDOVAL, et al.

No. 18-1466

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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

San Antonio, Texas

October 20, 2020

No. 04-20-00216-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.F., J.J.L., AND J.A.R., CHILDREN,

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-PA-02310

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee's Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED.

It is so ORDERED on October 20, 2020.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 13.2





CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

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

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



I, David Hackett, Chief Financial Officer of Diversinet Corp., hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Diversinet Corp.





/s/ David Hackett

Name: David Hackett

Title:   Chief Financial Officer

Dated March 11, 2005



This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard set forth therein, and not for any other purpose. It is not being filed as part of the Annual Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Corey Lamar SMITH, et al., Petitioners v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, former Governor of California, et al.

No. 18-1590

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

T-MOBILE USA, INC. 

 Defendant. 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

 Intervenor. 

 Case No. 2:23-cv-00469-JRG-RSP 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF 

INTERVENOR NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, Nokia of America Corporation makes this 

Corporate Disclosure Statement. Nokia of America Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of 

Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V., a company organized under the laws of the Netherlands, 

which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, a company organized 

under the laws of Finland. Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy is a wholly owned subsidiary of 

Nokia Corporation. Nokia Corporation is a publicly traded company organized under the laws of 

Finland. 

Dated: December 12, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Matthew S. Yungwirth 

Deron R. Dacus (TBN 00790553) 

ddacus@dacusfirm.com 

THE DACUS FIRM, P.C. 

821 ESE Loop 323 

Suite 430 

Tyler, Texas 75701 

Telephone: 903.705.1117 

Case 2:23-cv-00469-JRG-RSP Document 21 Filed 12/12/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 860
 2 

Facsimile: 903.581.2543 

Email: ddacus@dacusfirm.com 

Matthew S. Yungwirth 

Email: msyungwirth@duanemorris.com 

John R. Gibson 

Email: jrgibson@duanemorris.com 

Alice E. Snedeker 

aesnedeker@duanemorris.com 

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

Telephone: (404) 253-6900 

Counsel for Intervenor Nokia of America 

Corporation

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to 

electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system 

per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on December 12, 2023. 

/s/ Matthew S. Yungwirth 

Matthew S. Yungwirth 

Case 2:23-cv-00469-JRG-RSP Document 21 Filed 12/12/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 861
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title
18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Reptron Electronics, Inc., Inc., a Florida corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that:



To my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2004 (the Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|               |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                                      
|-------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|March 30, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    PAUL J. PLANTE
|Date           |  |  |  |     |  | Paul J. Plante       
|               |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 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.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT HUE B ING HUANG, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-71190 Age n c y No. A070-169-278 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d August 25, 2015 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , C LIFTON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. Hue B ing Hua

n g , a nat ive and c itiz e n

of C hina , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his m otion to re ope n de porta tion proc e e dings c onduc te d in a bse ntia . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252.



# FIL ED SEP 02 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).W e re vie wfor a buse of disc re tion the de n i a l of a m otion to re ope n, Av agy an v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th C ir. 2011), a nd we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion in deny ing Hua ng’ s m otion to re ope n on the grounds tha

t notic e wa s prope r and tha t Hua ng fa ile d to re but thestrong pre s um ption of e ffe c t ive se rvic e arising from the se rvic e of his he aring notic e by c e rtifie d m a il. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252b(a)(1)(F) (1994) (re pe a le d) (obliga t ion to notify c ourt of a ddre ss c ha

nge ); se e also id. § 1252b(a)(2)(A), (c )(1) (writte n notic e is c onside re d suffic ie nt if se nt to them o st re c e nt a ddre s s provide d). To the e xte nt Hua

ng c onte nds he fa ile d to a p pe ar due to e xc e ptiona l c irc um s ta nc e s , the B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing his mo tion a s untim e l y whe re he wa ite d se ve nte e n y e ars to file a m otion to re ope n, se e8 C .F.R . § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (motion to re ope n in a bse ntia proc e e dings ge n e ra lly

m ust be file d within 180 da

y s of the re m ova l orde r), a n d he did not e sta

blish the due dilige n c e re quire d for e quita ble tolling of the

filing de a dline whe re he a dm its he purpose fully

e va de d num e rous opportunitie s to re dre ss his in a bse ntia orde r, se e Av agy an , 646 F.3d a

t 678-80. In a ddition, the

a ge nc y did not a b use its disc re tion in deny ing whe re Hua ng fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t re ope ning wa s wa

rrante d ba se d on a

c la im of c h ange d c ountry c onditions in China . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2), (c )(3)(ii); Av a g y an , 646
1 3 - 7 1 1 9 0 2F.3d at 678 (“ The B IA a buse s its disc re tion whe n its de c ision is a rbitra ry , irrationa l, or c o ntra

ry to la w.” (inte rna l quota

tion m arks a

nd c ita tion omitte d )). Hua ng’ s re m a ining c o nte ntions a re una va iling. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 3 - 7 1 1 9 0 3
Chloris C. HALL, Petitioner, v. AUTHOR SOLUTIONS, et al.

No. 19-6542.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6031

In Re: ERIC DOMAIN GLOVER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CA-97-1020-4-10BE)

Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 17, 2000

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Domain Glover, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Glover filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an

order compelling the district court to release him from federal

custody immediately. We deny the petition.

A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) (writ of mandamus). Relief under this

writ is only available when there are no other means by which the

relief sought could be granted, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826

(4th Cir. 1987), and it may not be used as a substitute for appeal.

See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

The party seeking relief carries the heavy burden of showing that

he has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires”

and that his right to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” See

Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).

Glover has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

TIMOTHY POOLE (2)

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NO. 4:23-CR-00247 

ORDER ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY

The Court referred this matter to the United States Magistrate Judge for 

administration of a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The Magistrate 

Judge conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed by Rule 11 and issued Findings

of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the 

Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea and adjudge Defendant guilty on Count One of the 

Indictment. 

The parties have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings. 

The Court hereby ADOPTS the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty 

Plea of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court also accepts Defendant’s plea but 

defers acceptance of the plea agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

In accordance with Defendant’s guilty plea, the Court finds Defendant Timothy Poole

GUILTY of Count One of the Indictment, charging a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) – 

Hobbs Act Conspiracy. 

Case 4:23-cr-00247-ALM-BD Document 52 Filed 10/02/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 129
Case 2:23-cv-00469-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 10/10/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 690
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined t hat

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 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



### ____________________

No. 00-51258 Summary Calendar



### ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIA SOCORRO MAGALDE,

Defendant-Appellant.



### ____________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (EP-97-CR-647-ALL-DB)



### ____________________________________________________________ July 20, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

A jury convicted Maria Socorro Magalde on both counts of an

indictment charging her with possession with intent to distribute

marijuana and a related conspiracy. Magalde claims the

prosec utor’s remarks in closing argument improperly shifted the

burden of proof to her and invited the jury to convict her on the

basis of evidence outside the record.

As Magalde concedes, because her counsel d id not object

contemporaneously to those comments, we review only for plain2

error. S ee United States v. And rews , 22 F.3d 1328, 1341 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied

, 513 U.S. 941 (1994); see also United States v.

Munoz , 150 F.3d 401, 415 (5th Cir. 199 8), cert. denied , 525 U.S.

1112 (1999). In assessing whether the statements were improper, it

is, of course, necessary to look at them in context. U nited States

v. Washington

, 44 F.3d 1271, 1278 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 514

U.S. 1132 (1995). “The burden of showing plain error is a heavy

one, and this court will notice plain error only in exceptional

circumstances.” A ndrews
, 22 F.3d at 1341 (internal quotation

marks, brackets, and citation omitted).

In any event, review of the comments in their proper context

reveals that none were improp er. In short, there was no error,

much less plain error.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to
U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Stephen T. Wills, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Palatin Technologies, Inc., hereby certify, to my
knowledge, that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 of
Palatin Technologies, Inc. (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Palatin Technologies, Inc.

|Dated:  May 9, 2005 | /s/ Stephen T. WillsStephen T. WillsExecutive Vice President
     and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
|------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis URIAS-MARQUEZ, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7512

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

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

<ARTICLE>              7
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from Form 10-Q for
the six months ended June 30, 1998, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>      1
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           147,390,960
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                    0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                      0
<EQUITIES>                                      11,848,132
<MORTGAGE>                                               0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                            0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 164,314,768
<CASH>                                               2,663
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                  10,300
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          13,861,594
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 186,681,456
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                  9,925,980
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              7,260,468
<POLICY-OTHER>                                           0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                    0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 34,493,752
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           133,262
<OTHER-SE>                                     123,451,252
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   186,681,456
<PREMIUMS>                                      24,589,104
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              4,364,254
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 274,264
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       1,039
<BENEFITS>                                       2,584,000
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      2,635,326
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             6,337,531
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,502,614
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,074,664
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,427,950
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,427,950
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.82
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                           0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                      0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                        0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                       0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                         0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                          0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

**Aquentium, Inc.**

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officer of Aquentium, Inc. (the “Company”) certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

·

the annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended September 30, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

·

the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                               |                                                                                              |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  December 28, 2009 | */s/ Mark T. Taggatz*

Mark T. Taggatz

Chief Executive Officer

Principal Financial Officer |
June 7, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DENSO CORPORATION , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00353

- CV V.
DANIEL MEDINA, INDIV IDUALLY, AND AS REPR ESENTATIVE OF THE

ESTATE OF SILVIA MOR ALES, DECEASED , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on May 21, 2012. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance. We further order that mandate be issued immediately.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00084-CV

Darius L. Heads, Appellant

v.

Brittney McDade, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 

NO. 13-3062-FC4, THE HONORABLE JOHN MCMASTER, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant Darius L. Heads seeks to appeal the trial court’s order adjudicating him 

in contempt for failure to pay court-ordered child support and ordering him committed to county

jail. Contempt orders are reviewable only by original proceedings—by petition for writ of 

habeas corpus, if the person in contempt is confined, or by petition for writ of mandamus, if no 

confinement is involved. In re Office of Att’y Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d 913, 915 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 2007, orig. proceeding); Sheridan v. Office of the Att’y Gen., No. 03-14-00176-CV, 

2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 12370, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 12, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.). 

This Court does not have jurisdiction to review contempt orders on direct appeal. Texas Animal 

Health Comm’n v. Nunley, 647 S.W.2d 951, 952 (Tex. 1983); see Hopkins v. Ott, No. 03-15-

00606-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 4556, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 29, 2016, no pet.) 

(mem. op.). Consequently, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Kelly and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: May 9, 2019
Carl M. BURNETT, petitioner, v. PANASONIC CORPORATION, et al.

No. 18-414.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 521 

Designating September 2012 as ‘‘National Spinal Cord Injury Awareness 

Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 16, 2012 

Mr. RUBIO submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating September 2012 as ‘‘National Spinal Cord 

Injury Awareness Month’’. 

Whereas the estimated 1,275,000 individuals in the United 

States who live with a spinal cord injury cost society billions of dollars in health care costs and lost wages; 

Whereas an estimated 100,000 of those individuals are veterans who suffered the spinal cord injury while serving 

as members of the United States Armed Forces; 

Whereas accidents are the leading cause of spinal cord injuries; 

Whereas motor vehicle crashes are the second leading cause 

of spinal cord and traumatic brain injuries; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 521 ATS 

Whereas 70 percent of all spinal cord injuries that occur in 

children under the age of 18 are a result of motor vehicle 

accidents; 

Whereas every 48 minutes a person will become paralyzed, 

underscoring the urgent need to develop new neuroprotection, pharmacological, and regeneration treatments to reduce, prevent, and reverse paralysis; and 

Whereas increased education and investment in research are 

key factors in improving outcomes for victims of spinal 

cord injuries, improving the quality of life of victims, and 

ultimately curing paralysis: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates September 2012 as ‘‘Spinal Cord 

3 Injury Awareness Month’’; 

4 (2) supports the goals and ideals of Spinal Cord 

5 Injury Awareness Month; 

6 (3) continues to support research to find better 

7 treatments, therapies, and a cure for paralysis; 

8 (4) supports clinical trials for new therapies 

9 that offer promise and hope to those persons living 

10 with paralysis; and 

11 (5) commends the dedication of local, regional, 

12 and national organizations, researchers, doctors, vol13 unteers, and people across the United States that 

14 are working to improve the quality of life of people 

15 living with paralysis and their families. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS