alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Andrew K. BONNER, Jr., petitioner, v. CUMBERLAND REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.

No. 17-8956.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division denied.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

THE RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR THE 

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK and 

UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT and 

WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; 

SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00141-RWS-RSP

NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE

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

Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. hereby notify the Court that they have served their Invalidity 

Contentions and Subject Matter Eligibility Contentions on counsel for Plaintiff via electronic mail 

on January 29, 2024.

DATED: January 31, 2024 By: /s/ Melissa R. Smith

Melissa R. Smith 

Texas State Bar No. 24001351 

GILLAM & SMITH LLP 

303 South Washington Ave. 

Marshall, TX 75670 

903.934.8450 (Telephone) 

903.934.9257 (Facsimile) 

melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 

Frank A. DeCosta 

Parmanand K. Sharma (pro hac vice) 

Christopher T. Blackford (pro hac vice)

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 

GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 

901 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20001-4413 

Case 2:23-cv-00141-RWS-RSP Document 54 Filed 01/31/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 868
2

(202) 408-4000 

frank.decosta@finnegan.com 

parmanand.sharma@finnegan.com 

christopher.blackford@finnegan.com 

Charles H. Suh (pro hac vice) 

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 

GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 

1875 Explorer Street, 8th Floor 

Reston, VA 20190-6023 

(571) 203-2700 

charles.suh@finnegan.com 

Benjamin Schlesinger (pro hac vice) 

Shawn S. Chang (pro hac vice) 

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 

GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 

271 17th St. NW Suite 1400 

Atlanta, GA 30363-6209 

(404) 653-6400 

benjamin.schlesinger@finnegan.com 

shawn.chang@finnegan.com 

Counsel for Defendants 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung 

Semiconductor, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically in 

compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a) and served via email on all counsel of record on this 31st day 

of January, 2024. 

/s/ Melissa R. Smith

Melissa R. Smith

Case 2:23-cv-00141-RWS-RSP Document 54 Filed 01/31/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 869
Norman Lee SHILLINGS, Petitioner v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, et al.

No. 18-9034

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
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 Annual Report of Solitario Resources Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Christopher E. Herald, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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.
|Date: February 28, 2007
By: /s/ Christopher E. HeraldChristopher E. Herald
President and Chief Executive Officer
Larry NORTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6422.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

BARCO, INC. et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

YEALINK (USA) NETWORK 

TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. et al.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP

ORDER

Before the Court is the Unopposed Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel field by Defendants 

Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. 

(collectively, “Yealink”). Dkt. No. 36. After consideration, and noting its unopposed nature, the 

Motion is GRANTED. It is

ORDERED that Natalie A. Bennett, Elizabeth M. Chiaviello, and Morgan, Lewis & 

Bockius LLP are withdrawn as counsel of record for Yealink in the above captioned matter.

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 39 Filed 05/27/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 372
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD., 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

SAP AMERICA, INC. AND SAP SE,

 Defendants. 

 Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-21 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

 

DECLARATION OF SAMIR N. PANDYA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS SAP 

AMERICA, INC., AND SAP SE’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION 

FOR INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFER UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) 

Case 2:24-cv-00021-JRG Document 48-1 Filed 06/18/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1732
2

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Samir N. Pandya, declare as follows:

1. I am employed by SAP America, Inc. and work in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania. 

I am the Head of Global Litigation and have been employed by SAP for over 16 years.

2. I make this declaration in support of Defendants SAP America Inc. and SAP SE’s

(collectively, “SAP”) reply brief, which is further in support of their Motion for Intra-District

Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (ECF 22). Unless otherwise indicated below, I have 

knowledge of the facts set forth herein based on my personal knowledge, my review of corporate 

records maintained by SAP in the ordinary course of business, and/or my discussions with other 

SAP employees.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on _________.

_

Samir N. Pandya

-XQH  

Case 2:24-cv-00021-JRG Document 48-1 Filed 06/18/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1733
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. KA R L D. C HR OMY, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 35219 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 3 0 9 - BR ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon A nnaJ . B r ow n, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a y24, 2011 ** B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , T H O M A S , an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. K a r l D . C hr om y appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s um m a ryj udgm e nt in a n a c tio n b r o u g h t b y th e U n ite d S ta te s a g a in s t C h r o m yf o rd e f au ltin g o n h is f e d e r a lly - in s u r e d s tu d e n t lo a n . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . V

an der v . U

. S. D ep’t of Just i ce , 26 8 F . 3d 66 1, 66 3 (9th C i r.



# FI LED JU N 09 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 35219 2 2 0 0 1 ) . W e a f

f irm . T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of the U ni t ed S t a t e s be c aus e the undi s put e d f a c t s s how tha tC hr om yobt a i ne d as tude ntl oa n a nd th e n d e f au lte d o n it. Se e id. ( s um m a ryj udgm e ntappr opr i a t e w he n, r e vi e w i ng the r e c or d a s aw hol e a nd dr a w i ng a l l r e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e s i n f

a vorof the nonm ovi ng pa rty , the r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c t ) ; 34 C . F . R . § 682. 102( e ) ( 1) ( b o rr o w e rm u s t r e p a y f

u ll a m o u n t o f

lo a n , la te f

e e s , c o lle c tio n c o s ts a n d in te r e s t) . A lth o u g h C h r o m y m a y b e e n title d to d is c h a r g e o f h is s tu d e n t lo a n d u e to h is di s abi l i ty , i ti s undi s put e d tha the di d nots ubm i tadi s c ha r ge appl i c a t i on be f or e the d is tr ic t c o u rt g r a n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See 34 C . F . R . § 682. 402( c ) ( 2) ( r e qui r i ng th a t th e b o rr o w e rs e e k in g ad is c h a r g e o f h is lo a n b a s e d o n ad is ab ility“s u b m it a d is c h a r g e ap p lic a tio n to th e le n d e ro n af o rm ap p r o v e d b yth e S e c r e ta ry ” ) ; see a l so Fr a s e rv . G o o da le , 34 2 F . 3d 10 32 , 10 36 (9th C i r. 20 03 ) ( “ In re vi ew i ng a s um m ary j udgm e nt , w e a r e l i m i t e d t o the . . . e vi de nc e a va i l abl e t o the c ourta tthe t i m e the m ot i on w as m ade. ” ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal qu ot at i on s m arks om i tt ed)) . C hrom y’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
James Lee BELL, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 19-7298

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 534 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 534

     Congratulating the Navy Dental Corps on its 100th anniversary.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 2012

 Mr. Manchin submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Congratulating the Navy Dental Corps on its 100th anniversary.

Whereas, on August 22, 1912, Congress passed an Act recognizing Navy dentistry 
        as a distinct branch among naval medical professions;
Whereas throughout history, the Navy Dental Corps has supported the Navy by 
        sustaining sailor and marine readiness and providing routine and 
        emergency dental care, ashore and afloat, in peace and in war;
Whereas the Navy Dental Corps works continuously to improve the health of 
        sailors, marines, and their families by supporting individual and 
        community prevention initiatives, good oral hygiene practices, and 
        treatment;
Whereas the Navy Dental Corps endeavors to improve oral health worldwide by 
        participating in the spectrum of military combat, peacekeeping, and 
        humanitarian operations and exercises;
Whereas the Navy Dental Corps, in collaboration with national and international 
        dental organizations, promotes dental professionalism and quality of 
        care;
Whereas the Navy Dental Corps supports the mission of the Federal dental 
        research program and endorses improved dental technologies and therapies 
        through research and adherence to sound scientific principles; and
Whereas the Navy Dental Corps recognizes the importance of continuing 
        professional dental education, requiring and supporting specialty dental 
        education and postgraduate residencies and fellowships for its members: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) congratulates the Navy Dental Corps on its 100th 
        anniversary;
            (2) commends the Navy Dental Corps for working to sustain 
        the dental readiness and the oral health of a superb fighting 
        force; and
            (3) recognizes the thousands of dentists who have served in 
        the Navy Dental Corps over the last 100 years, providing dental 
        care to millions of members of the Armed Forces and their 
        families.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

UNIVERSAL CONNECTIVITY 

TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LENOVO GROUP LIMITED,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00449-JRG

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.’s (“UCT” or

“Plaintiff”) Unopposed Motion for the Issuance of Letter Rogatory (the “Motion”). Having 

considered the Motion, the Court is of the opinion that it should be and hereby is GRANTED.

Accordingly, the Court will execute the Request for Judicial Assistance attached as Exhibit

A to UCT’s Motion. The Clerk is DIRECTED to authenticate, under seal of this Court, the Court’s 

signature on the Request for Judicial Assistance and prepare two certified copies of the signed 

letter. Counsel for UCT is hereby ORDERED to arrange receipt of the materials from the Court 

by contacting the Clerk’s Office and to deliver the issued Request for Judicial Assistance to the 

proper authority in Taiwan.

Case 2:23-cv-00449-JRG Document 63-2 Filed 12/03/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:

1176
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. 

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

 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

COMES NOW Matthew S. Yungwirth, admitted to the bar of this Court on December 6, 

2007, and respectfully enters his appearance as lead counsel of record for T-Mobile USA, Inc. 

All further communications, correspondence and orders may be directed to Mr. Yungwirth at the 

below address: 

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309 

Telephone: (404) 253-6900 

Facsimile: (404) 253-6901 

E-mail: msyungwirth@duanemorris.com 

Dated: November 15, 2023 DUANE MORRIS LLP 

/s/ Matthew S. Yungwirth 

Matthew S. Yungwirth 

msyungwirth@duanemorris.com 

1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

Telephone: 404.253.6900 

Facsimile: 404.253.6901 

Counsel for Defendant 

Case 2:23-cv-00469-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 11/15/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 691
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that on November 15, 2023, a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF APPEARANCE was electronically filed with the Clerk of 

Court using the CM/ECF system, which will automatically send notification of such filing to all 

attorneys of record. 

/s/ Matthew S. Yungwirth 

 Matthew S. Yungwirth 

Case 2:23-cv-00469-JRG-RSP Document 14 Filed 11/15/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 692
Giuliano Stefano Giovanni WILDHABER, Petitioner v. EFV, et al.

No. 18-1414

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.2


                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, D. Scott Houston, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of EarthShell Corporation;


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. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are 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 we have:


     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
     ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us 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 our 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
     materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting; and


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


     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal controls 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 controls
     over financial reporting.


Date: November 11, 2003                     By: /s/ D. Scott Houston
                                                --------------------
                                                  D. Scott Houston
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
FST-03.31.2012-EX-10.4




AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is made this ___ day of _________, 2010, by and between Forest Oil Corporation, a New York corporation (the “Company”), and ___________________ (“Executive”).
WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have heretofore entered into that certain Severance Agreement dated ______________, _______ (as may have been amended from time to time, the “Severance Agreement”); 
WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee has extended the term of the Severance Agreement to December 17, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Severance Agreement in certain respects in order to comply with new guidance promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above and the mutual agreements set forth herein, the Company and Executive hereby agree that the Severance Agreement shall be amended as hereafter provided, effective as of the date first set forth above:
1.    Paragraph 3(a) of the Severance Agreement shall be deleted and the following shall be substituted therefor:
“(a)    Pay Executive a lump sum cash payment in an amount equal to the Severance Amount on the date that is 60 days after the date of Executive’s Involuntary Termination.”
2.    As amended hereby, the Severance Agreement is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment effective as herein provided.
	
				
	FOREST OIL CORPORATION
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Name:
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Title:
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 

	EXECUTIVE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

782 

CA 14-01844 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

CAROL DURNEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PETER J. MCQUILLEN, JUDITH M. MCQUILLEN, 

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, 

ET AL., DEFENDANTS. 

KNAUF SHAW LLP, ROCHESTER (AMY K. KENDALL OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

BONARIGO & MCCUTCHEON, BATAVIA (KRISTIE L. DEFREZE OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Genesee County (Robert

C. Noonan, A.J.), entered June 6, 2014. The order, inter alia,

granted in part the motion of defendants Peter J. McQuillen and Judith

M. McQuillen for summary judgment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order that, inter alia,

granted in part the motion for summary judgment of defendants Peter J.

McQuillen and Judith M. McQuillen. We affirm for reasons stated in

the “decision and order” of Supreme Court, and we write only to note

that, under the circumstances presented, we decline to search the

record to reach issues raised by defendants, who did not cross-appeal

from the order (see Ginter v Flushing Terrace, LLC, 121 AD3d 840, 845;

New York Univ. Hosp. Rusk Inst. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 39 AD3d

832, 833).

Entered: June 12, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Cheryl JONES, Petitioner, v. Stephen GOLDBERG, et al.

No. 19-7224.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.
Marcos CORTEZ-ROGEL, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7088.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 6, 2020

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