alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40298 (Summary Calendar)

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GABRIEL RESENDEZ-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. M-94-CR-157-9)

- - - - - - - - - - February 9, 1996

Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant appeals his j ury conviction for conspiracy to

possess marijuana with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting

possession with intent to distribute, complaining of insufficiency

of the evidence, material variance between the evi dence and the

indictment, and prosecutorial misconduct. Our review of the record

and the arguments and authorities convince us that no reversible

error was committed. The evidence was not insufficient. S ee

United St ates v. Ivey , 949 F.2d 759, 766 (5th Cir. 1991), c ert.2

denied

, 113 S. Ct. 64 ( 1992). There was no material variance

between the evidence and the indictment. S ee United States v.

Faulkner

, 17 F.3d 745, 762 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 115 S. Ct. 193

(1994). The prosecutor's questioning and statements did not rise

to the level of plain error. S ee United States v. Brown
, 887 F.2d

537, 542 (5th Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED.
Alaina ADKINS, et al., Petitioners, v. Jesse Michael COLLENS.

No. 19-646.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Alaska denied.
EXHIBIT 6 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 43-7 Filed 02/22/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 459
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS

AMERICA, INC.

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. AND SAMSUNG

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S P.R. 3-3 AND 3-4

INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS

Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

(collectively, “Defendants” or “Samsung”) hereby provide the following Preliminary Invalidity

Contentions (“Contentions”) to Plaintiff Cobblestone Wireless LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Cobblestone”)

for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,924,802 (“the ’802 patent”), 8,891,347 (“the ’347 patent”), 9,094,888 (“the

’888 patent”), 10,368,361 (“the ’361 patent”), and 8,554,196 (“the ’196 patent”) (collectively, the

“Asserted Patents”).

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

In its Infringement Contentions dated September 28, 2023, Cobblestone asserted the

following 61 claims1(the “Asserted Claims”):

• Claims 1–4, 6–10, 13, 14, 17, and 21–24 of the ’802 patent;

1 Although Cobblestone’s infringement contentions originally identified claim 22 of the ’802

patent as an asserted claim, Cobblestone provided no claim chart for this claim. Samsung reserves

all rights to object to any future amended infringement chart for claim 22 of the ’802 patent.

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 43-7 Filed 02/22/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 460
SAMSUNG’S PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY AND PATENT INELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS

-114-

• Claim 17: “select the first frequency spectrum resource from the shared resource pool”

• Claim 11: “uplink resource pool”

• Claim 11: “downlink resource pool”

• Claim 13: “The initial directional allocation of frequency spectrum resources is based on

current resource requests form a wireless device service by the wireless base station, and

current resources requests from the wireless base station.”

• Claim 15: “multiple resource elements associated with each of the multiple subcarriers”

VII. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

Pursuant to Patent Rule 3-4, Samsung is concurrently producing the prior art identified

in these Invalidity Contentions, but Samsung is not required to produce the prior art in the file

histories of the Asserted Patents. 

In addition, based on investigations to date, Samsung is concurrently producing and/or

making available for inspection source code, specifications, schematics, flow charts, artwork,

formulas, or other documentation sufficient to show the operation of any aspects or elements of

the Accused Instrumentalities identified by Cobblestone in its P.R. 3-1(c) chart.

Samsung reserves the right to supplement these productions with additional

documentation, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, the

Court’s orders and other applicable rules and statutes.

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 43-7 Filed 02/22/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 461
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Bilingualism in AD.                    

*Date:*                         July 22, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dario Dieguez, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 827-3101,                         *dario.dieguez@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 25, 2022.

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst. Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-11593 Filed 5-27-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANSE SULLIVAN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, the Santa

Clara County Board of Supervisors; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees,

and

T. P. RYAN; et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 08-17469

D.C. No. 5:04-cv-02089-JW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

James Ware, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

FILED

JUN 17 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-17469

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. 

Manse Sullivan appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the conditions of

confinement in county jail during his civil commitment proceedings under the

Sexually Violent Predators Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo. City of Martinez v. Texaco Trading & Transp., Inc., 353 F.3d

758, 761 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly granted summary judgment as to Sullivan’s

claims arising from his confinement in 1999 because those claims have already

been litigated, or could have been litigated, by the parties or their privies in state

court. See Sullivan v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors, No. CV 812427, slip

op. at 1 (Cal. Super. Ct. Oct. 29, 2003) (dismissing Sullivan’s claims with

prejudice); see also Kay v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 504 F.3d 803, 808 (9th

Cir. 2007) (describing elements of res judicata under California law).

However, Sullivan’s claims arising from his confinement in 2003 and 2004

were not raised in the state court case filed on November 4, 2002, and thus, those

claims are not precluded. See Clark v. Yosemite Cmty. Coll. Dist., 785 F.2d 781,

789 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The doctrine of res judicata extends only to the facts and

conditions as they existed at the time the judgment was rendered, and to the legal
3 08-17469

rights and relations of the parties as fixed by the facts determined in the

judgment.”). Accordingly, we reverse the grant of summary judgment as to those

claims, and remand for further proceedings.

Sullivan’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
Kyle R. HURST, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 19-630

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF VISUAL DATA CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          15,874
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      989
<ALLOWANCES>                                        44
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,098
<PP&E>                                           5,419
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,810
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,062
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           844
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,585
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,720
<SALES>                                          4,464
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,464
<CGS>                                            4,927
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,248
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7,151)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         7
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (7,158)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (7,158)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.20)


</TABLE>
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, '

'

Plaintiff, '

'

versus ' NO. 1:23-CR-16-4

'

LATISHA MAE THEBEAU, '

'

Defendant. '

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION

ON DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for administration of a guilty plea under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. Judge Stetson conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed by 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and issued her Findings of Fact and Recommendation 

on Guilty Plea Before the United States Magistrate Judge. Judge Stetson recommended that 

the court accept the Defendant’s guilty plea. She further recommended that the court adjudge 

the Defendant guilty on Count One of the Information filed against the Defendant.

The parties have not objected to Judge Stetson’s findings. The court ORDERS that the 

Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of the United States Magistrate Judge are 

ADOPTED. The court accepts the Defendant’s plea but defers acceptance of the plea 

agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

It is further ORDERED that, in accordance with the Defendant’s guilty plea and the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, the Defendant, Latisha Mae Thebeau, is 

Case 1:23-cr-00016-MAC-ZJH Document 128 Filed 09/06/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 291
2

adjudged guilty as to Count One of the Information charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4 -

Misprision of a Felony.

Case 1:23-cr-00016-MAC-ZJH Document 128 Filed 09/06/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 292
Exhibit 10.40 fy 2011






EXHIBIT 10.40




February 3, 2012


Mr. David M. Meyer, Managing Director
Knightspoint Partners, LLC
1325 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10019


Dear David:


This will confirm your agreement with CPI Corp. (the “Company”) regarding your position as the Executive Chairman (the “Chairman”) of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”).  You hereby agree and acknowledge that you will continue to serve as the Chairman at the pleasure of the Board.  


In your capacity as the Chairman, you hereby agree to assist the Board and management in developing plans and strategies for protecting and increasing shareholder value over time including establishing new sources of revenue that leverage the Company's capabilities and infrastructure.


As compensation for your services as the Chairman, you will be entitled to all compensation normally paid to members of the Company's Board, including but not limited to fees for attending meetings, and the reimbursement of expenses, all on a basis commensurate with the Company's compensation and expense reimbursement policies for Board members.  You shall also be entitled to receive an additional quarterly fee in the amount of $37,500.00, payable on the first day of each quarter of the Company's fiscal year during the term of this letter agreement, commencing with the quarter beginning February 5, 2012.


This letter agreement shall terminate immediately in the event of a termination of your service on the Board for any reason, or your ceasing to be the Chairman for any reason.  In addition, either party may terminate this letter agreement at any time and for any reason upon seven (7) days prior written notice to the other party.  


This letter agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and shall supercede any and all prior agreements or understandings related to the subject matter hereof.  Any term or provision of this letter agreement may be waived at any time by the party which is entitled to the benefits thereof, and any term or provision of this letter agreement may be amended or supplemented at any time by the mutual consent of the parties hereto, except that any waiver of any term or condition, or any amendment, of this letter agreement must be in writing. 



































The laws of the State of Missouri shall govern the interpretation, validity and performance of the terms of this letter agreement regardless of the law that might be applied under principles of conflict of laws.


Please acknowledge your agreement to the terms set forth herein by signing and returning one copy of this letter to me.  






Sincerely,


CPI Corp. 


By: /s/Turner White
_________________________________
                           Turner White
                              Chairman, Compensation Committee


Agreed to this 3rd day of February 2012




/s/ David M. Meyer
__________________________  
David M. Meyer






















































- 2 -
Anthony Quentin KELLY, petitioner, v. Frank BISHOP, Warden, et al.

No. 18-6220.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 11

                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                         THREE MONTHS ENDED            SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                             JANUARY 31                   JANUARY 31
                                          1997         1996            1997        1996
                                          ----         ----            ----        ----
<S>                                    <C>         <C>              <C>         <C>

Primary:
 Average shares outstanding             3,639,350   3,545,147        3,592,248    3,545,147

Net effect of dilutive common stock
 equivalents - based on treasury
 stock method (A)                          31,255         ---           52,739          ---
                                       ----------  ----------       ----------  -----------

Total weighted average number
 of common and common
 equivalent shares outstanding          3,670,605   3,545,147        3,644,987    3,545,147
                                       ==========  ==========       ==========  ===========

Net income (loss)                      $   15,330  $ (437,740)      $  283,324  $(1,693,597)
                                       ==========  ==========       ==========  ===========

Per share amount                       $     0.00  $    (0.12)      $     0.08  $     (0.48)
                                       ==========  ==========       ==========  ===========
</TABLE>
(A)  Common stock equivalents are excluded in January 1996 periods due to anti
dilutive effect.
Adriano Kruel BUDRI, Petitioner v. Daniel M. HUMPHREYS

No. 18-1576

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District denied.
COREY BOONE

,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA COMMISSION ON

OFFENDER REVIEW

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 1666

Opinion filed December 4, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

— Original Jurisdiction

.

Corey Boone, pro se, P etitioner.

Rana Wallace, General Counsel, Florida Commission on Offender Review,

Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and WETHERELL and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
Mark J. LIPSKI, Petitioner, v. MAINE.

No. 19-7082

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine denied.
Carlos COSME, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6623.

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.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32.2

                            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  of  Environmental  Service
Professionals,  Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June
30, 2007 (the "Report") I, Edward L. Torres,  Acting Chief Financial  Officer of
the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

         (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.

Dated:  August 20, 2007


\s\ Edward L. Torres
------------------------------------------------
Edward L. Torres, Acting Chief Financial Officer

         This  certification  accompanies  the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>


                                  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  of  Environmental  Service
Professionals, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,
2008 (the "Report") I, Edward L. Torres,  Chief Executive  Officer and President
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

     (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.

Dated:  May 20, 2008


\s\ Edward L. Torres
-------------------------------------------------------
Edward L. Torres, Chief Executive Officer and President

         This  certification  accompanies  the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
John Alfred REGALADO, Petitioner, v. Donald J. TRUMP, President of the United States, et al.

No. 19-7362.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

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