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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

OPTIMORPHIX, INC. §

§

v. § CASE NO. 5:23-CV-00134-RWS-JBB

§

CA, INC. §

ORDER

Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement (Dkt.

No. 40) filed by Plaintiff OptiMorphix, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant CA, Inc. (“Defendant”). In

the parties’ joint filing, the parties represent the joint motion to stay arises from a confidential

agreement in principle between Plaintiff and a third party and Defendant and the third party that

would resolve all matters in controversy between the parties.1 The parties jointly request that this

case be stayed for a period of thirty (30) daysso that appropriate dismissal papers may be submitted

upon finalization of the settlement. Finding good cause, the Court is of the opinion that the motion

(Dkt. No. 40) should be and is hereby GRANTED. It is therefore 

ORDERED that the case is STAYED for thirty (30) days so that the parties can complete 

the necessary paperwork associated with completing the resolution of this matter. It is further

ORDERED that the parties or their counsel shall submit to the Court, within thirty (30) days

from the date of entry of this Order, all papers necessary for the closing of this case and its 

removal from the active docket of this Court. If the parties have not finalized their dismissal 

paperwork by that time, the parties shall file a status update reflecting the parties’ settlement 

progress.

1Given the unique structure of the settlement, the parties are excused from the Standing Order Regarding Proper

Notification of Settlement’s requirement that they provide the “amount of the settlement.”

.

____________________________________

J. Boone Baxter

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SIGNED this the 6th day of May, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB Document 41 Filed 05/06/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 604
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 436 

Designating the week of April 22 through 28, 2012, as the ‘‘Week of the 

Young Child’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Mr. BEGICH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the week of April 22 through 28, 2012, as 

the ‘‘Week of the Young Child’’. 

Whereas there are 20,000,000 children under the age of 5 in 

the United States; 

Whereas numerous studies show that high-quality early childhood education programs improve the likelihood that children will have success in school and in life by improving 

their cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development; 

Whereas many children eligible for, and in need of, high-quality child care, Early Head Start, Head Start, and other 

early childhood education programs are not served by 

such programs; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 436 IS 

Whereas child care assistance and other early childhood education programs enable parents to work, go to school, 

and support their families; 

Whereas the individuals who work with young children deserve the respect of the people of the United States, professional support, and fair compensation to reflect the 

important value of their work; 

Whereas economist and Nobel Laureate James Heckman has 

stated that investment in childhood education reaps economic returns due to outcomes such as lower special education placements, lower juvenile delinquency rates, and 

greater school graduation rates; and 

Whereas the National Association for the Education of Young 

Children established the ‘‘Week of the Young Child’’ to 

bring attention to the developmental and learning needs 

of young children: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates the week of April 22 through 28, 

3 2012, as the ‘‘Week of the Young Child’’; 

4 (2) encourages the people of the United States 

5 to celebrate— 

6 (A) young children and families; and 

7 (B) the individuals who provide high-qual8 ity care and early childhood education to the 

9 young children of the United States; and 

10 (3) urges the people of the United States to 

11 recognize the importance of— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 436 IS 

1 (A) high-quality, comprehensive early 

2 childhood education programs; and 

3 (B) the value of those programs for pre4 paring children to— 

5 (i) experience positive development 

6 and education; and 

7 (ii) enjoy lifelong success. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.48

                                AMENDMENT NO. 3
                                      TO
               VASTAR RESOURCES, INC. CAPITAL ACCUMULATION PLAN
                          __________________________


Pursuant to the resolutions adopted by Board of Directors on October 15, 1997,
the Vastar Resources, Inc. Capital Accumulation Plan (the "Plan") is hereby
amended effective as of November 1, 1997:

Paragraph 10.1 of the Plan is amended to read as follows:

     "10.1   Amendment of Plan

             (a) Except as provided in Subparagraph 10.1(b), the Plan may be
                 amended by the Board of Directors of Vastar Resources, Inc.

             (b) A committee consisting of the Vice President, Human Resources,
                 the Vice President and Controller, the Vice President and
                 General Counsel, and the General Tax Officer of Vastar
                 Resources, Inc. may amend the Plan under the following
                 circumstances:

                 (i)   Legally required changes;

                 (ii)  Improvement of administrative efficiency;

                 (iii) Implementation of contractual commitments made by the
                       Company regarding matters relating to acquisitions,
                       divestitures, joint ventures or mergers and any matter
                       negotiated pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement;

                 (iv)  Implementation of any transfer of assets, merger or spin-
                       off of plan assets among plans within the Company; or

                                       1
<PAGE>
 
                 (v)   Implementation of participation in the Plan by
                       Subsidiaries or Affiliates of the Company.

             (c) No amendment shall reduce the account of any Member as of the
                 date of such amendment."


Executed this 30th day of December, 1997.


ATTEST                                 VASTAR RESOURCES, INC.



BY: /s/ JONATHAN D. EDELFELT           By: /s/ JEFFREY M. BENDER
    -------------------------             ---------------------
    JONATHAN D. EDELFELT                  JEFFREY M. BENDER
    Associate Secretary                   Vice President
                                          Human Resources

                                       2
<PAGE>
 
                 OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
          Exhibit (11)-Statement Re:Computation of Earnings per Share
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                              Three Months Ended      Six Months Ended
                                                    June 30                June 30
                                                 1997     1996          1997     1996
                                                ------   ------        ------   ------
                                                (000's omitted, except per share data)
<S>                                             <C>      <C>           <C>     <C>
Primary:
Average shares outstanding                      4,144    4,170         4,144    4,159
Net effect of dilutive stock options - 
  based on the treasury stock method                        78                     69
                                                  ---       --           ---       --
Totals                                          4,144    4,248         4,144    4,228
                                                =====    =====         =====   ======
Net income                                       $279     $586          $432   $1,105
                                                =====    =====         =====   ====== 
Per share amount                                $0.07    $0.14         $0.10    $0.26
                                                =====    =====         =====    =====
Fully diluted:
Average shares outstanding                      4,144    4,170         4,144    4,159
Net effect of dilutive stock options -
  based on the treasury stock method                       112                    112
Assumed conversion of convertible 
  debentures                                               654                    654
                                                  ---      ---           ---      ---
Totals                                          4,144    4,936         4,144    4,925
                                                =====    =====         =====    =====
Net income                                       $279     $586          $432   $1,105
Add debenture interest, net of tax
  effect                                                    52                    107
                                                  ---       --           ---      ---
Totals                                           $279     $638          $432   $1,212
                                                =====    =====         =====   ======
Per share amount                                $0.07    $0.13         $0.10    $0.25
                                                =====    =====         =====   ======
</TABLE> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       See notes to financial statements
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

# **SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

#  

Theundersigned hereby certify that this report complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the informationcontained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  November 4, 2005 | By:                                    | /s/ Roger E.  Gower |   |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------|---------------------|--------|
|                          | Roger E. Gower                         |
|                          | President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

 
| Dated:  November 4, 2005 | By:                       | Thomas P. Maun |   |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------|----------------|--------|
|                          | Chief Financial  Officer  |
|                          | Chief Accounting  Officer |

 

----
EX-10.1



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 March 9, 2012 
 Howard Hochhauser 
 Dear Howard: 
 I am pleased to congratulate you on your February 13, 2012 promotion to Chief
Operating Officer and CFO for Ancestry.com Inc. (the “Company”), to be based in our Corporate office in Provo, Utah, reporting to the Chief Executive Officer. In recognition of this new role and your continued role as Chief Financial
Officer, we propose the following adjustment to your compensation. 
  

	Salary:	 $300,000 annualized, payable semi-monthly according to normal company payroll policy. This salary increase will be  effective retroactive to January 1,
2012. 

  

	Bonus:	 A target of 75% of salary based upon company and individual performance goals per the terms and conditions of the  Company’s Performance Incentive
Program. 

 Other than the salary adjustment indicated above, this letter does not change any terms or conditions of your
employment arrangement as addressed in the July 2009 letter and the July 2010 amendment. 
 Please signify your acceptance of these adjustments
to your compensation package by signing below and by signing and returning the attached Agreement to Protect Company Property. 
 If you have
any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at (801) 705-7000. 
 Sincerely, 

/s/ Tim Sullivan 

							
				
	 Tim Sullivan

CEO
	 		 		 	/s/ Howard Hochhauser
	Ancestry.com Inc.	 		 		 	Howard Hochhauser
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

### **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS REQUIRED BY**

# **SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

# ** **

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscalperiod ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis M. Hanson, SeniorExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifythat to the best of my knowledge:

 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
|                | /s/ Dennis M. Hanson                 |
|---------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                |                                 |
|                | Senior Executive Vice  President and |
|                | Chief Financial Officer              |
|                | (Principal Financial  Officer)       |
|                |                                 |
|                |                                 |
| August 7, 2009 |                                 |

 

----
Alice BROWN, petitioner, v. DEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, et al.

No. 18-6507.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Tavares L. FARRINGTON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7881.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 6, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Random JACKSON, Petitioner, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 19-7540

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Leon Markel WINSTON, Petitioner, v. Joe M. ALLBAUGH, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

No. 18-9207

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 461 

Recognizing the teachers of the United States for their contributions to 

the development and progress of our Nation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 15, 2012 

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mrs. 

MURRAY, Mr. BEGICH, Mr. WARNER, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. SANDERS, 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota, Mr. 

COONS, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mr. KOHL) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the teachers of the United States for their 

contributions to the development and progress of our Nation. 

Whereas education is the foundation of the current and future strength of the United States; 

Whereas teachers and other education staff have earned and 

deserve the respect of students and communities for selfless dedication to our Nation’s children; 

Whereas the purpose of ‘‘National Teacher Appreciation 

Week’’ is to raise public awareness of the important contributions of teachers and to promote greater respect and 

understanding for the teaching profession; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•SRES 461 ATS 

Whereas the teachers of the United States play an important 

role in preparing children to be positive and contributing 

members of society; and 

Whereas students, schools, communities, and a number of organizations host teacher appreciation events in recognition of ‘‘National Teacher Appreciation Week’’: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) thanks teachers for their service; 

3 (2) promotes the profession of teaching; and 

4 (3) recognizes students, parents, school admin5 istrators, and public officials who participate in 

6 teacher appreciation events during ‘‘National Teach7 er Appreciation Week’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 52-2 Filed 08/06/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 833
Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 52-2 Filed 08/06/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 834
Clear prices, happy shoppers: DSLs enhance the customer experience

Walmart stores have over 120,000 products on shelves, each with an individual price tag. Every week our stores support thousands of pricing updat

for new items, Rollbacks and markdowns.

Digital shelf labels, developed by Vusion Group, allow us to update prices at the shelf using a mobile app, reducing the need to walk around the store

to change paper tags by hand and giving us more time to support customers in the store

6/26/24, 12:02 AM New Tech, Better Outcomes: Digital Shelf Labels Are a Win for Customers and Associates

https://corporate.walmart.com/news/2024/06/06/new-tech-better-outcomes-digital-shelf-labels-are-a-win-for-customers-and-associates 2/4

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 52-2 Filed 08/06/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 835
Day in my life: DSLs empower associates

Working with DSLs has transformed my daily routine. This new tech enhances the way we stock shelves and fulfill orders. Here are a few key benefits I

experience every day:

Increased productivity and reduced walking time: DSLs allow us to update prices with a few clicks. A price change that used to take an associate

two days to update now takes only minutes with the new DSL system. This efficiency means we can spend more time assisting customers and less

time on repetitive tasks.

Simplified stock replenishment: With the “Stock to Light” feature, an associate can flash an LED light on the shelf tag using their mobile device,

signaling locations that require attention. This feature makes it easier for associates to identify shelf location when stocking shelves.

Faster order picking and fulfillment: The “Pick to Light” feature guides us directly to the products needed for online orders, speeding up the

picking process and improving order accuracy.

01:59

6/26/24, 12:02 AM New Tech, Better Outcomes: Digital Shelf Labels Are a Win for Customers and Associates

https://corporate.walmart.com/news/2024/06/06/new-tech-better-outcomes-digital-shelf-labels-are-a-win-for-customers-and-associates 3/4

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 52-2 Filed 08/06/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 836
Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 52-2 Filed 08/06/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 837
Frederick H. BANKS, Petitioner, v. Dennis WALKER, U.S. Marshal, et al.

No. 18-9721

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

 Eastern District of Texas

Headwater Research LLC

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, et al

2:23cv641-JRG-RSP

Headwater Research LLC

07/17/2024 /s/ Andrea L. Fair

Andrea L. Fair; Texas Bar No. 24078488

1507 Bill Owens Parkway

Longview, Texas 75604

andrea@wsfirm.com

(903) 757-6400

(903) 757-2323

Case 2:23-cv-00641-JRG-RSP Document 46 Filed 07/17/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1030
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

LONNY GLENN ENNEN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-30195

D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00058-TMB-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 4, 2011

Anchorage, Alaska

Before: ALARCÓN, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Lonny Glenn Ennen appeals from the district court’s order denying his

motion to suppress evidence obtained following the issuance of a search warrant by

a state magistrate. Because we conclude that the entry into Ennen’s home, which

led to the issuance of the warrant, did not violate Ennen’s rights under the Fourth

FILED

MAY 12 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Amendment, and because probable cause supported issuance of the warrant, we

affirm.

We review the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress de novo. 

United States v. Basher, 629 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2011). Factual findings

made at the suppression hearing are reviewed for clear error. Id. 

Ennen has not demonstrated that the district court clearly erred in

determining that he consented to the Alaska State Troopers’ entry into his home. 

Trooper Cook testified at the suppression hearing that, when Ennen opened the

door in response to his announcement that he had a warrant for Ennen’s arrest,

Ennen stated, “Come on in.” The fact that the district court stated that Ennen’s

invitation was not “discernible” on the audio recording of the encounter does not

support Ennen’s contention that he did not consent.

Once inside the cabin, the Troopers smelled the odor of growing marijuana

plants. They also saw a triple-beam scale on a shelf and a bright white light

emitting from a back room. These facts, among others, were alleged in the

affidavit that was submitted in support of the application for a state search warrant. 

The presence of the scale, which could have been used for weighing marijuana for

sale, together with the odor, was sufficient to demonstrate that there was probable

cause to believe that Ennen was engaged in growing marijuana for distribution. 
3

See United States v. Noster, 590 F.3d 624, 629-30 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[P]robable

cause exists where under the totality of the circumstances known to the officer, a

prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair probability that the

suspect had committed or was committing a crime.”), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2362

(2010). Accordingly, we need not consider whether the discovery of the evidence

found in the back room prior to the issuance of the search warrant was lawful. The

district court did not err in concluding that the search warrant was valid.

AFFIRMED.