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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROCHE DIABETES CARE, LTD.,

Defendant.

Lead Case: 2:23-cv-00585-JRG-RSP

Consolidated Case: 2:24-cv-00046-JRG-RSP

Jury Trial Demanded 

DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

WONDERSHARE TECHNOLOGY 

GROUP CO LTD.,

Defendant.

Lead Case: 2:23-cv-00585-JRG-RSP

Consolidated Case: 2:24-cv-00046-JRG-RSP

DECLARATION OF RANDALL T. GARTEISER

I, Randall T. Garteiser, declare as follows: 

1. I am a partner at the law firm of Garteiser Honea, PLLC, based in Tyler, Texas. 

Garteiser Honea represents Display Technologies, LLC (“Display Technologies”) in this lawsuit. 

I have personal knowledge of the information contained in this declaration and can testify to the 

truth of these statements.

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an email exchange, I 

had with Wondershare’s Counsel. Wondershare never agreed to a waiver service of process and 

is instead forcing Plaintiff incur additional costs to perfect service. 

Case 2:23-cv-00585-JRG-RSP Document 24-5 Filed 05/11/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 871
3. Plaintiff will suffer undue harm if this consolidated case is delayed due to 

Wondershare avoiding service at its office in Canada. 

I declare, on May 10, 2024, in Smith County, Texas and under penalty of perjury under 

the laws of the United States and Texas, that the statements made in this declaration are true and 

correct.

Dated: May 10, 2024 /s/ Randall T. Garteiser

Randall T. Garteiser

Case 2:23-cv-00585-JRG-RSP Document 24-5 Filed 05/11/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 872
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 62 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Wednesday, October 30, 2013, Thursday, Octo4 ber 31, 2013, or Friday, November 1, 2013, on a motion 

5 offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Ma6 jority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 

7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 12, 2013, or until the 
2 

•HCON 62 EH 

1 time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this con2 current resolution, whichever occurs first. 

3 SEC. 2. (a) The Speaker or his designee, after con4 sultation with the Minority Leader of the House, shall no5 tify the Members of the House to reassemble at such place 

6 and time as he may designate if, in his opinion, the public 

7 interest shall warrant it. 

8 (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), 

9 when the House adjourns on a motion offered pursuant 

10 to this subsection by its Majority Leader or his designee, 

11 the House shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the 

12 first section of this concurrent resolution. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 30, 

2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 62 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the 

House of Representatives.
Brent Evan WEBSTER, Petitioner, v. CORVEL ENTERPRISE COMPANY, INC., et al.

No. 19-7897.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 4, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Oregon denied.
Cody Joseph MORGAN, Petitioner v. TEXAS.

No. 18-9570

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
Power of Attorney



 Exhibit 4.20 
 Power of Attorney 
 I, Guifang QI, a Chinese citizen with Chinese
Identification Card No.: 23210219621101282x, and a holder of 18.53% of the entire registered capital in Harbin Hongdoushan Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. (the “Company”) (“My Shareholding”), hereby irrevocably
authorize Heilongjiang Jingshangjing Bio-Technology Development Co., Limited (“WFOE”) to exercise the following rights relating to My Shareholding during the term of this Power of Attorney: 

WFOE is hereby authorized to act on behalf of myself as my exclusive agent and attorney with respect to all matters concerning My
Shareholding, including without limitation to: 1) attend shareholders’ meetings of Company; 2) exercise all the shareholder’s rights and shareholder’s voting rights I am entitled to under the laws of China and Company’s Articles
of Association, including but not limited to the sale or transfer or pledge or disposition of My Shareholding in part or in whole; and 3) designate and appoint on behalf of myself the legal representative, the executive director, supervisor, the
manager and other senior management members of Company. 
 Without limiting the generality of the powers granted hereunder, WFOE
shall have the power and authority under this Power of Attorney to execute the Transfer Contracts stipulated in Exclusive Option Agreement, to which I am required to be a party, on behalf of myself, and to effect the terms of the Share Pledge
Agreement and Exclusive Option Agreement, both dated the date hereof, to which I am a party. 
 All the actions associated with
My Shareholding conducted by WFOE shall be deemed as my own actions, and all the documents related to My Shareholding executed by WFOE shall be deemed to be executed by me. I hereby acknowledge and ratify those actions and/or documents by WFOE.

 WFOE is entitled to re-authorize or assign its rights related to the aforesaid matters to any other person or entity at its
own discretion and without giving prior notice to me or obtaining my consent. 
 This Power of Attorney is coupled with an
interest and shall be irrevocable and continuously valid from the date of execution of this Power of Attorney, so long as I am a shareholder of Company. 
 During the term of this Power of Attorney, I hereby waive all the rights associated with My Shareholding, which have been authorized to WFOE through this Power of Attorney, and shall not exercise such
rights by myself. 
 This Power of Attorney is written in Chinese and English; in case there is any conflict between the Chinese
version and the English version, the Chinese version shall prevail. 

  
 1 








 
			
	Guifang QI
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Guifang Qi

	
	November 5th, 2010


  

			
	Witness:	 	 /s/ Shumei Huang

	
	Name:
	
	November 5th, 2010


  
 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Anthony Matthews, Also Known as Robert Matthews and Ronald Downs, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

July 13, 1973.

*669
      *William E. Hellerstein, Robert Kasanof*and *Bertrand J. Kahn*for appellant. *Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney, (Michael R. Juviler*and *Barry M. Fallick*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Defendant was convicted, on a plea of guilty, of attempted grand larceny in the third degree and petit larceny and sentenced to one year on each charge, the terms to run. consecutively. Although a medical report of examination pursuant to section 81.19 of the Mental Hygiene Law found defendant to be a narcotics addict, and the defendant admitted to being an addict, the trial court, after a hearing, refused to make any determination as to addiction prior to sentencing. The subsequent determination of nonaddiction by the trial court *after*sentencing, in response to habeas corpus application, does not salvage the trial court’s disregard of section 81.21 of the Mental Hygiene Law which mandates that a finding of addiction or nonaddiction must be made prior to sentencing.

As to defendant’s contention that he is entitled to a jury trial on the issue of addiction or nonaddiction the statute (Mental Hygiene Law, § 81.21, subd. [a]) is equally clear — only a convicted misdemeanant who denies addiction or stands mute is entitled to a jury trial. Here, defendant has admitted he is an addict and the only purpose of a hearing is for the court to “ satisfy” itself that the defendant is or is not an addict. A jury trial is not necessary to achieve that result.

The question of whether or not a defendant convicted of multiple misdemeanors and subject to sentences amounting to more than one year in jail can be sentenced under the Penal *670Law rather than certified to the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission is not reached on this appeal.

The judgments of conviction should be modified by reversing them on the law with respect to the sentences and remanding the cases to the Criminal Court, New York County for resentencing in accordance with section 81.21 of the Mental Hygiene Law, and, as modified unanimously affirmed.

Concur — Markowitz, P. J., Lupiano and Quinn, JJ.

Judgments of conviction modified, etc.
CONSENT OF EXPERT



March 30, 2017



Eldorado Gold Corporation



United States Securities and Exchange Commission



Ladies and Gentlemen:



Re: Eldorado Gold Corporation



I, Rick Alexander, do hereby consent to the
filing of the written disclosure regarding the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the Efemcukuru Project”
dated September 17, 2007 and of extracts from or a summary of the technical report, and the use of my name in the Annual Information
Form and Annual Report on Form 40-F of Eldorado Gold Corporation (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2016
and any amendments thereto and any Registration Statement on Form S-8 incorporating by reference the Company’s Annual Information
Form and Annual Report on Form 40-F.



| | By: | /s/ Rick Alexander       
| | --- | -------------------------
| |     | Rick Alexander, P. Eng   
| |     | Eldorado Gold Corporation
| |     | Project Director         
| |     |
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**AS REQUIRED BY**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Steinway MusicalInstruments, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal period ended June 30,2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Dennis M. Hanson, Senior Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of myknowledge:

 

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

 

2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

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

 

 

August 9, 2010

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

ELIOTT WILLIAMS §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv363

S. PEREZ, ET AL. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Elliot Williams, an inmate confined at the Lewis Unit of the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several defendants.

Discussion

When, as in this case, jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391 provides that venue is proper only in the judicial district where the defendants reside or in

which the claim arose. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), for the convenience of parties and witnesses and

in the interests of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division

where it could have been brought.

The actions allegedly taken by the defendants took place at the Lewis Unit, which is located

in the Lufkin Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 

Plaintiff’s claims therefore arose in the Lufkin Division. The defendants, who are employed at the

Lewis Unit, appears to reside in the Lufkin Division. However, this case was filed in the Beaumont

Division. 

Case 1:23-cv-00363-MJT-CLS Document 2 Filed 10/02/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 26
The court has considered the circumstances and determined that the interest of justice would

be served if the complaint were transferred to the division in which the claims arose. It is

accordingly

ORDERED that this civil rights action is TRANSFERRED to the Lufkin Division of the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

2

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 2nd day of October, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00363-MJT-CLS Document 2 Filed 10/02/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 27
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 06/18/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       36,375
COMMITMENTS
   5,642    3,942    1,514   17,684   20,760   24,840   26,216   11,535   10,159

CHANGES FROM 06/11/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -1,307)
  -1,724      295      -47     -549   -2,293   -2,320   -2,045    1,013      738

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    15.5     10.8      4.2     48.6     57.1     68.3     72.1     31.7     27.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       56)
      13        9        8       28       23       44       38
```

----

Updated June 21, 2013
Lowrell NEAL, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5215

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Jeffrey A. ROBERTSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al.

No. 18-1341.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Evan Marshall Roberts

, * From the 104th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 19691B

.

Vs. No. 11

- 15

- 00138

- CR * July 16, 2015

The State of Texas

, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(P anel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has considered Evan Marshall Roberts’s motion to dismiss his

appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance

with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
# FILED September 19, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COU RT OF CR IMINA L A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE

AT NA SHVILLE JULY 1997 SES SION

JOHN L. GOO DWIN, III, ) ) C.C.A . NO. 01C01-9 608-CR-00337 Appellant, ) ) SUMNER COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. JANE WHEA TCRAFT, STA TE OF TENN ESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (W rit of error coram nobis) FOR TH E APPEL LANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: JOHN L. GOO DWIN, III, p ro se JOHN KNOX WALKUP S.T.S.R.C.F. U nit 12 Attorney Gen eral & Repor ter Route 4, Box 600 Pikevil le, TN 37367 EUGENE J. HO NEA Asst. Attorney

General 450 Jame s Rob erts on Pk wy. Nashvil le, TN 37243-0493 LA WRENCE RA

Y WHITLEY Distric t Attorney General DE E G AY Asst. Dist rict Attor ney General 133 West Main St. Gallatin, TN 37066
OPINION FILE D:____________________
AF FIRMED JOHN H. PE AY, Judge2 O P I N I O N
Th e petitioner w

as convic

ted on December 12, 1989, of second -degre e burglary and assault w ith intent to r ape. No appeal w

as taken. Upon his peti tion forpostconvicti on relief and appeal from the trial court’s di smissal thereof, he was g ranted a delayed direct appeal from his conv ictions and s entences by t his Court on November 12, 1992. On April 2 0, 1995, this C ourt affirmed his convictions and reman ded for resente ncing. Following the petitioner’s appeal of his new sentences, this Court affirmed on July 23, 1997. On June 4, 1996 , the petitioner filed his “Appli cation for Coram Nobis and/or in the Alter native to R eopen Origi nal Post-Conviction Petit ion.” On June 12, 1996, the court below

dismissed t h is pleading without a filed response fro m the State or a hearing. The petitioner now appea ls.

We af firm. Petitions

for writ of error coram nobis must be filed wi thin one year after the judgment becomes final. T.C.A. § 27- 7-103 (Repl. 1980). See also T.C.A. § 40-26-105 (R epl. 1990). In this matter, t he defendant’ s judg ment of convicti ons becamefinal on April20, 1995. Since his petition attacks only his convi cti o ns, the petitioner’s

application i s time-barred. This issueis wi thout merit.
The petitioner r

equests in t he alternative that his plead in g be consider ed a motion to reopen his orig inal petitio n for post-conv iction rel ief. Motions to reopen postconvicti on petitions may be granted onl y under very limi ted grounds. SeeT.C.A. § 40-30-217(a) (Supp. 1996) . Th e instant pleading does not set f orth any of these grounds. Accordingly, denial is proper.3 The judgment below

is affirmed.

_________ _____________________ __ _ JOHN H. PEA Y, Judge CONCUR:

______________________________ W ILLIAM M. BARKER, Judge

______________________________ JERRY L. SMI TH, Jud ge
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 17

- 00298

- CV NO. 02

- 17

- 00300

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A .M., A CHILD

------------
FROM THE 323RD DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO S . 323

- 103401

- 16, 323

- 105593

- 17

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


### MEMORANDUM OPINI ON 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

------------ We have considered appellant s’ “Verified Joint Motion to Set Aside Trial

C ourt’s Judgment[s] and Remand Based on Settlement Agreement.” It is the
court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, in accordance wi t h

r ule 42.1(a)(2)(B), we set aside the trial court’s August 22, 2017 orders without

rega rd to the merits and remand these case s to the trial court to render
judgment s in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement

. 2 See Tex. R.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 Base d on our disposition of the parties’ joint motion, the Department of Family and Protective Services’s request to stay its briefing deadline is denied as moot.2

App. P. 42.1(a)(2 ) (B ); Innovative Office Sys., Inc. v. Johnson , 911 S.W.2d 387,
388 (Tex. 1995).

Costs of the se appeal s shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for

which let execution issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GAB RIEL, JJ.

DELIVERED: December 7 , 2017
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6732

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HENRY CLIFFORD BYRD, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-83-52, CA-95-703-6)

Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 15, 1996

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Clifford Byrd, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Gill Paul Beck, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Byrd, Nos. CR-83-52; CA-95-703-6

(M.D.N.C. Apr. 1, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 33517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11817]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service 
Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: June 2, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
May 26, 2022, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express Contract 94 to Competitive Product 
List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2022-61, 
CP2022-67.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2022-11817 Filed 6-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ultimate Electronics, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
October 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/J. EDWARD MCENTIREJ. Edward McEntire
Chief Executive Officer
Date: December 15, 2003 |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ALAN E. KESSOCKAlan E. Kessock
Chief Financial Officer
Date: December 15, 2003       |  | 

---

QuickLinks