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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

COREY L. JOHNSON, #127345, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Case No. 6:24-cv-049-JDK-KNM

§

GERALD JEROME SMITH, Sr., §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Corey L. Johnson, an inmate of the Gregg County Jail proceeding pro 

se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights lawsuit alleging violations of his 

constitutional rights by his criminal defense attorney. The case was referred to 

United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell, for findings of fact, conclusions of 

law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. 

On May 13, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that

the case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Docket No. 7. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff, who did

not file written objections.

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire 

record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United 

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other 

1

Case 6:24-cv-00049-JDK-KNM Document 8 Filed 07/11/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 31
grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from 

ten to fourteen days). 

Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore 

reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and 

reviews her legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 

918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the 

standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 

the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to 

law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 7) as the findings of this Court. This case 

is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. 

2

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11th July, 2024.

Case 6:24-cv-00049-JDK-KNM Document 8 Filed 07/11/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 32
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 225 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 225

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase to 100 percent 
  the amount of the deduction for the health insurance costs of self-
                         employed individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1999

Mr. Pomeroy (for himself and Mr. McHugh) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase to 100 percent 
  the amount of the deduction for the health insurance costs of self-
                         employed individuals.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Self-Employed Health Affordability 
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR 100 PERCENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS OF SELF-
              EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 162(l) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) Allowance of deduction.--In the case of an individual 
        who is an employee within the meaning of section 401(c)(1), 
        there shall be allowed as a deduction under this section an 
        amount equal to 100 percent of the amount paid during the 
        taxable year for insurance which constitutes medical care for 
        the taxpayer, his spouse, and dependents.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998.
                                 <all>
```
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

THE DAILY WIRE, LLC et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF STATE et al., 

 Defendants. 

 Civil Action No. 6:23-cv-00609 (JDK) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Having considered Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Excess pages, the Court 

determines that good cause exists for Defendants’ request. It is: 

ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is GRANTED; and 

ORDERED that Defendants may file a 50-page combined brief containing their Opposition 

to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 27-1 Filed 03/15/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 787
Patrick Demon CALDWELL, II, Petitioner v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al.

No. 19-5226

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 50-11 Filed 08/06/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 753
Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 50-11 Filed 08/06/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 754
Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 50-11 Filed 08/06/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 755
Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 50-11 Filed 08/06/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 756
Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 50-11 Filed 08/06/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 757
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             479
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    39807
<ALLOWANCES>                                       350
<INVENTORY>                                      58694
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                101882
<PP&E>                                           41400
<DEPRECIATION>                                   10531
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  138632
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            24651
<BONDS>                                          67345
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            61
<OTHER-SE>                                       48629
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    138632
<SALES>                                         268937
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                268937
<CGS>                                           217088
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   252111
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4025
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  12801
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5148
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               7653
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      7653
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.24
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1****Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification**I, Matthew H. Knight, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report as of and for the period ended September 30, 2007 onForm 10-Q of Strategic Diagnostics Inc. (the “registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 14, 2007 /s/ Matthew H. Knight   Matthew H. Knight   Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00046-JRG-RSP

ORDER

Before the Court is the Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant 

Wondershare Technology Group Co Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 10.) Having considered the 

Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the deadline for the Plaintiff to submit its Response shall be 

extended to April 18, 2024.

DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

WONDERSHARE TECHNOLOGY GROUP 

CO LTD.,

Defendants.

Case 2:24-cv-00046-JRG-RSP Document 12 Filed 04/05/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 110
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 27, 2019 a0320

Order 

Clerk

March 27, 2019

157831(24)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 157831

COA: 341647 

Wayne CC: 16-004206-FC

RALPH ANTHONY MARSHALL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 30, 

2018 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).

CAVANAGH, J. (concurring). 

I concur in the denial of the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 30, 

2018 order because I agree that reconsideration of our previous order is not warranted. I 

write separately to note that the motion for reconsideration raised new issues that are not 

properly before this Court, and this denial does not prejudice the defendant’s ability to 

raise those issues in a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Subchapter 6.500 of 

the Michigan Court Rules.
Amendment No. 3 to Employment Agreement


Reference is made to an employment  agreement  dated January 1, 1994, as amended
by an Amendment to Employment  Agreement  dated as of September 23, 1994, and as
further amended by Amendment No. 2 to Employment Agreement effective as of March
28, 1997 ("Second Amendment") between HERC Products Incoporated  ("Company") and
Gary S. Glatter ("Glatter").

Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Second Amendment,  Glatter has agreed to purchase
the 1995  Windstar  Van  ("Van")  and the  Company has agreed to sell the Van to
Glatter on the following terms:

1.       The purchase price of the Van shall be $10,685.80  ("Purchase  Price"),
         the book value of the Van on the books of the Company as of October 31,
         1997.

2.       The  Purchase  Price shall be paid by way of  modifying  the  Company's
         obligations to Glatter, so that the two last $5,000.00 payments owed by
         the  Company  to  Glatter  pursuant  to  Paragraph  2(b) of the  Second
         Amendment are hereby  waived,  and on October 1, 1998 the Company shall
         make the last payment ot Glatter in the amount of $3,461.86.  This last
         payment  reflects  interest on the Purchase Price at the rate of 9% per
         annum for the period November 1, 1997 - September 30, 1998.

3.       Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms of the Employment
         Agreement,  as  previously  amended,  shall  remain  in full  force and
         effect.


DATED this 31st day of October, 1997



H.E.R.C. Products Incorporation


By: /s/ Kristi A. Cordray
   -------------------------------
         KRISTI A. CORDRAY
         Vice President of Administration


/s/ Gary S. Glatter
-------------------------------
GARY S. GLATTER
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHRISTOPHER JOE YOUNGER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 380 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T-MOBILE US, INC., T-MOBILE USA,

INC., AND SPRINT CORP.,

Defendants. 

 Civil Action No: 2:23-cv-00377-JRG-RSP

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

The undersigned attorney hereby enters an appearance as additional counsel of record for 

Defendants T-Mobile US, Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc., and Sprint Corp. (“Defendants”), and certifies 

that he is authorized to receive service of all pleadings, notices, orders and other papers in the 

above-captioned matter on behalf of the above-named Defendants. 

Josh A. Krevitt 

New York Bar No. 2568228 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166 

Telephone: (212) 351-2490, Facsimile: (212) 351-6390 

JKrevitt@gibsondunn.com 

JURY DEMANDED

Case 2:23-cv-00377-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 11/02/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 307
Dated: November 2, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Josh A. Krevitt

Josh A. Krevitt 

New York Bar No. 2568228 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

200 Park Avenue 

New York, New York 10166 

Telephone: (212) 351-2490 

Facsimile: (212) 351-6390 

JKrevitt@gibsondunn.com 

 Counsel for Defendants. 

Case 2:23-cv-00377-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 11/02/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 308
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document has been served on November 2, 2023, to all counsel of record who are deemed to 

have consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). 

 

/s/ Josh A. Krevitt

Case 2:23-cv-00377-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 11/02/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 309
ex10-2.htm










AMENDMENT #7


 


to the


 


COMMERCIAL SUPPLY AGREEMENT


(originally effective May 23, 2007)


 


by and between


 


LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. (“LGD”) - formerly named LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.


 


and


 


UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORPORATION (“UDC”)












This Amendment #7 shall amend and modify certain provision of the above-referenced Commercial Supply Agreement, as previously amended effective as of June 30, 2008, June 30, 2009, December 31, 2009, June 30, 2010, December 31, 2010 and June 30, 2011 (the “Agreement”).  This Amendment #7 shall be effective as of December 31, 2011.







1.           Article 9.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to extend the term of the Agreement for six (6) additional months, through June 30, 2012.







2.           Except as set forth in this Amendment #7, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  In the event of any conflict between the Agreement and in this Amendment #7, then this Amendment #7 will govern.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, intending to be legally bound, have caused this Amendment #7 to be executed by their duly authorized representatives:








	
LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.

	  	
UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORPORATION


	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	
By:

	
 /s/ Soo Jin Oh

	  	
By:

	
 /s/ Steven V. Abramson


	  	  	  	  	  
	
Name:

	
 Soo Jin Oh

	  	
Name:

	
 Steven Abramson


	  	  	  	  	  
	
Title:

	
Head of Purchasing Division

	  	
Title:

	
 President


	  	  	  	  	  
	
Date:

	
 Feb 29, 2012

	  	
Date:

	
 March 6, 2012
Alfredo CASTILLO-REYES, Petitioner, v. Bobbi Grant INGALLS, et al.

No. 19-7715.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
Therian Cornelia WIMBUSH, Petitioner, v. Willie Sue MICKENS, Warden.

No. 19-5209.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION 

THE DAILY WIRE, LLC, ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS, 

V. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ET AL., 

DEFENDANTS. 

CASE NO. 6:23-CV-00609-JDK

THE STATE OF TEXAS’S NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF CO-COUNSEL

Plaintiff The State of Texas files this Notice of Substitution of Co-Counsel and respectfully 

shows the following:

SUSANNA DOKUPIL, Special Counsel with the Special Litigation Division of the Office of 

Attorney General of Texas, is designated as Attorney-in Charge for the State of Texas in this 

matter. 

AMY SNOW HILTON appeared in this case as co-counsel on behalf of the State of Texas in 

her capacity as Special Counsel for the Special Litigation Division for the Office of the Attorney 

General. Ms. Hilton has been reassigned as Division Chief for Health Program Enforcement

Division for the Office of the Attorney General, thus reassigned to other matters. 

JONATHAN STONE and JACOB E. PRZADA, Special Counsel with the Special Litigation 

Division appeared in this case as co-counsel on behalf of the State of Texas. Mr. Stone and Mr. 

Przada have been administratively reassigned to other matters therefore it is necessary to withdraw 

them as attorneys of record in this case.

DAVID BRYANT, Senior Special Counsel with the Special Litigation Division, has been 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 71 Filed 08/14/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 2123
2 

assigned as co-counsel to represent the State of Texas in this cause. Mr. Bryant is admitted to 

practice in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and is a member in 

good standing of the State Bar of Texas. 

Plaintiff, the State of Texas requests that Mr. Bryant be served with all future 

correspondence and pleadings and withdraws Amy Snow Hilton, Jonathan Stone, and Jacob E. 

Przada as Counsel of Record.

Date: August 14, 2024

KEN PAXTON

Attorney General 

BRENT WEBSTER

First Assistant Attorney General 

RALPH MOLINA

Deputy First Assistant Attorney General 

CHARLES K. ELDRED

Chief, Legal Strategy 

Texas Bar No. 00793681

RYAN D. WALTERS

Chief, Special Litigation Division 

/s/ David Bryant

MONROE ‘DAVID’ BRYANT

Senior Special Counsel

Texas Bar No. 03281500

Respectfully submitted.

SUSANNA DOKUPIL

Special Counsel

Attorney-in-Charge

Texas Bar No. 24034419

MUNERA AL-FUHAID

Special Counsel

Texas Bar No. 24094501

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

Special Litigation Division

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711-2548

Tel.: (512) 463-2100

susanna.dokupil@oag.texas.gov

David.bryant@oag.texas.gov

Munera.Al-Fuhaid@oag.texas.gov

COUNSEL FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 71 Filed 08/14/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 2124
3 

(via CM/ECF) on August 14, 2024 and that all counsel of record were served by CM/ECF.

/s/ David Bryant

MONROE ‘DAVID’ BRYANT

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 71 Filed 08/14/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 2125
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

OPTIMORPHIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

BROADCOM INC.,

 Defendant.

Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-134

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

AGREED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO MOTION

TO DISMISS

COMES NOW, Plaintiff OptiMorphix, Inc., (“Plaintiff”), and files this Agreed Motion for 

Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Dismiss and shows the Court as follows:

On January 26, 2024 Broadcom Inc. filed its Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 13). Plaintiff’s 

Response is currently due on February 9, 2024. Plaintiff has requested, and Broadcom Inc. has 

agreed to, a fourteen (14) day extension of this deadline, up to and including February 23, 2024.

Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests an extension of its deadline to file a Response to 

the Motion to Dismiss up to and including February 23, 2024. 

Case 5:23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB Document 19 Filed 02/07/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 353
Page 2 of 2

Dated: February 7, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel P. Hipskind____________________

Dorian S. Berger (CA SB No. 264424)

Daniel P. Hipskind (CA SB No. 266763)

Erin E. McCracken (CA SB No. 244523)

BERGER & HIPSKIND LLP

9538 Brighton Way, Ste. 320

Beverly Hills, CA 90210

Telephone: 323-886-3430

Facsimile: 323-978-5508

E-mail: dsb@bergerhipskind.com

E-mail: dph@bergerhipskind.com

E-mail: eem@bergerhipskind.com

Elizabeth L. DeRieux

State Bar No. 05770585

Capshaw DeRieux, LLP

114 E. Commerce Ave.

Gladewater, TX 75647

Telephone: 903-845-5770

E-mail: ederieux@capshawlaw.com

Attorneys for OptiMorphix, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Plaintiff met and conferred with 

counsel for Broadcom Inc. and this motion is agreed.

/s/ Daniel P. Hipskind 

Case 5:23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB Document 19 Filed 02/07/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 354