alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00123-CV

James Allred; Wholearth Organic Composting, L.L.C.; Target Brush and Grinding,

L.L.C.; JOH Investments, Ltd.; and JOH Associates, L.L.C., Appellants

v.

Howard Hale and Cheryl Hale, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GN600106, HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

The parties have filed an agreed motion to withdraw oral argument and abate this

appeal. The parties have informed us that they are in the process of settling this matter and have

asked for an abatement to focus on the settlement negotiations. We grant the motion and abate the

appeal until October 23, 2006. If the parties have not filed an agreed motion to dismiss this appeal

by that date, they should advise the court of the status of the settlement proceedings.

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Filed: September 20, 2006
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

TEKWAY, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T SERVICES, INC.,

 Defendant.

Case No. 20-cv-04095

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

For the reasons set forth in their accompanying Memorandum in Support of 

their Motion to Dismiss, incorporated herein, Defendant AT&T Services, Inc. ( 

“AT&T”) respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion to dismiss. 

The Court should dismiss Plaintiff Tekway, Inc.’s (“Tekway”) Complaint for 

lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s Complaint also suffers from other fatal 

deficiencies that warrant the dismissal of its claims. Tekway cannot make colorable 

claims against AT&T for tortious interference with Tekway’s Agreement with 

Pinnacle Technical Resources, Inc. (“Pinnacle”), Tekway’s employment agreements 

with its former employees, or for civil conspiracy as a derivative theory of liability. 

For these reasons, set forth more fully in the accompanying Memorandum, 

AT&T respectfully request this Court grant its Motion to Dismiss. 

Respectfully submitted,

By: s/Kathryn E. Siegel

Case: 1:20-cv-04095 Document #: 12 Filed: 09/28/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:58
-2-

Kathryn E. Siegel

Shanthi V. Gaur

Jenna Kim

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100

Chicago, IL 60654

312.372.5520

ksiegel@littler.com

sgaur@littler.com

jekim@littler.com

Dated: September 28, 2020

Case: 1:20-cv-04095 Document #: 12 Filed: 09/28/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:59
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Kathryn E. Siegel, an attorney, hereby certifies that, on September 28, 2020, 

she caused a copy of the foregoing Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s 

Complaint to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court, using the court’s 

CM/ECF system. Notification of such filing will be sent to the following party:

DAMON MATHIAS

MATHIAS RAPHAEL PLLC

9 E. Superior, Suite 400

Chicago, IL 60611

312.738.5323 (p)

damon@mrlaw.com

/s/ Kathryn Siegel

Kathryn Siegel

4844-7192-6988.2

Case: 1:20-cv-04095 Document #: 12 Filed: 09/28/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:60
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ABC Corporation I et al, 

 Plaintiffs,

 

v. 

THE PARTNERSHIPS and 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”, 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-04806 

Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Durkin 

Magistrate Judge: Jeffrey Cole

DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY RESPONDENTS’ 

MOTION FOR EXCEPTIONAL CASE FINDING AND ATTORNEY FEES

Come Now, Defendant Gyroor-US (“Defendant”) and Third-Party Respondents Gyroor, 

Urbanmax, GaodeshangUS, Fengchi-US, Gyroshoes, Jiangyou-US, HGSM and Shenzhen 

Yanjingmaoyi Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Third-Party Respondents”) respectfully move the Court to 

grant Defendant and Third-Party Respondents’ Motion for Exceptional Case Finding and Attorney 

Fees. 

In support of this Motion, Defendant and Third-Party Respondents herewith submit a 

Memorandum of Law. 

Date: 3/8/2024 

 

/s/ Wei Wang

Wei Wang, Esq. 

GLACIER LAW LLP 

41 Madison Avenue, Ste 2529 

New York, NY 10010

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 709 Filed: 03/08/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:18185
wei.wang@glacier.law 

332-777-7315 

GLACIER LAW LLP 

506 Second Ave., Ste 1516 

Seattle, WA 98104 

Na Zhang, Esq. 

queena.zhang@glacier.law 

206-397-8633 

GLACIER LAW LLP 

200 E. Randolph Dr., Ste. 5100 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Ruoting Men, Esq. 

ruoting.men@glacier.law

Tianyu Ju, Esq. 

iris.ju@glacier.law 

312-270-0413 

Attorneys for Defendant and 

Third-Party Respondents

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 709 Filed: 03/08/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:18186
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this March 8, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing file 

with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and service was perfected on all counsel of 

record and interested parties through this system, which will deliver a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing documents via CM/ECF. 

Date: 3/8/2024 

 

/s/ Na Zhang 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 709 Filed: 03/08/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:18187
#### J. W. Burton *v.*Sarah F. Wingate.

Attachment — Property in Hands of Agent — Notice of Sale — Change of Possession.

Property, in the hands of an agent who has no notice of salé made prior to the levy of the attachment, is subject to the attachment as possession did not follow the sale.

February 9, 1872.

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

*Russell, for appellant.*

*J. G. Moore, for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Lindsay:

Mrs. Brent, who held' the attached property as the agent of the debtor Stephen G. Burton, had received no notice of the alleged sale to the appellant up to the time the order of attachment was levied. It seems to us perfectly manifest that in point of fact no change -of possession actual or constructive followed the sale. Wherefore; the court below correctly adjudged the piano subject to the attachment, and properly dismissed appellant’s petition. The rule against appellant and 'his surety to pay the value of the attached property according to the terms of their 'bond has not yet been finally disposed of; hence the proceedings thereunder are not now subject to revision by this court.

The judgment dismissing appellant’s petition is *affirmed.*
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-86,452-01

IN RE ORLANDO SALAZAR, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. C-08-0822-SA IN THE 340th DISTRICT COURT

FROM TOM GREEN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the 340th District Court of Tom Green County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that the

application has not yet been forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of Tom

Green County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such

habeas corpus application, submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be

investigated (see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that
2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Tom Green County. Should the

response include an order designating issues, proof of the date the district attorney’s office was

served with the habeas application shall also be submitted with the response. This application for

leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the

appropriate response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: March 22, 2017

Do not publish
Executive Compensation Summary



 Exhibit 10.36 
  
 Executive Officer Summary Compensation Sheet 
  
 Annual Cash Compensation for Senior Executive Officers 
  
 The annual cash compensation for Executive Officers of Rackable Systems,
Inc. as of November 7, 2005, was as follows: 
  

							
	 Executive Officer

	  	 Annual
 Base
 Salary ($)

	  	 Annual
Target
 Bonus ($)


	 Thomas K. Barton
	  	$	340,000	  	$	175,000
	 President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	 	 	  	 	 
			
	 Todd R. Ford
	  	 	260,500	  	 	100,000
	 Executive Vice President of Operations and Chief Financial Officer
	  	 	 	  	 	 
			
	 Giovanni Coglitore
	  	 	150,000	  	 	100,000
	 Founder and Chief Technology Officer
	  	 	 	  	 	 
			
	 Nikolai Gallo
	  	 	150,000	  	 	100,000
	 Founder and Chief Procurement Officer
	  	 	 	  	 	 
			
	 Jack Randall 
	  	 	150,000	  	 	100,000
	 Founder and Former Vice President of Information Systems
	  	 	 	  	 	 
			
	 Thomas Gallivan
	  	 	160,000	  	 	190,000
	 Vice President of Worldwide Sales
	  	 	 	  	 	 
			
	 Roy Chang
	  	 	 	  	 	 
	 Vice President of Operations
	  	 	175,000	  	 	40,000
			
	 William P. Garvey
	  	 	190,000	  	 	47,500
	 General Counsel, Vice President of Corporate Development and Secretary
	  	 	 	  	 	 
			
	 Colette LaForce
	  	 	 	  	 	 
	 Vice President of Marketing
	  	 	150,000	  	 	60,000

  
 Cash Bonus Arrangements for
Executive Officers: 
  

	1.	The bonus awards for Thomas K. Barton and Todd R. Ford (percentage of target bonus) are determined quarterly based upon Rackable Systems’ achievement of its goals for revenues,
gross margin, earnings per share (on a normalized basis) and quarterly backlog, as such goals are specified in the operating plan provided by management to Rackable Systems’ board of directors. 

  

	2.	The bonus award for Thomas Gallivan is determined as follows: 

  

	 	•	 	0.1% on on the first $160 million in revenue; 

  

	 	•	 	0.2% on revenue from $160 million to $200 million; and 

  

	 	•	 	0.3% on revenue above $200 million. 

  

	3.	The bonus awards (percentage of target bonus) for all other executive officers is determined by the achievement of individual goals and objectives throughout each quarter.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 495

Relating to the recognition of the connection between the emancipation of

African slaves in the Danish West Indies, now the United States Virgin

Islands, to the American Declaration of Independence from the British

Government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 25, 1998

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN (for herself, Ms. KILPATRICK, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of

Texas, Mr. JEFFERSON, and Mr. CONYERS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Relating to the recognition of the connection between the

emancipation of African slaves in the Danish West Indies, now the United States Virgin Islands, to the American Declaration of Independence from the British Government.

Whereas, prior to July 3, 1848, many Africans were held as

slaves on the islands of the Danish West Indies, now the

United States Virgin Islands;

Whereas, on July 3, under the leadership of Moses ‘‘General

Buddhoe’’ Gottlieb, the African slaves on the Island of

St. Croix responded to the signal of the blowing of conch

shells by leaving their plantations to converge on Fort

Frederik in the town of Frederiksted;
2

•HRES 495 IH

Whereas in Frederiksted the African slaves demanded their

freedom and threatened to destroy the island by fire unless it was granted by 4 o’clock that afternoon;

Whereas, confronted by reports of arson and insurrection, the

Danish governor, Peter von Scholten, met the African

slaves in Frederiksted and declared that ‘‘all unfree in

the Danish West Indies are from today free’’;

Whereas the heroes of this rebellion paid a high price, General Buddhoe being sent into exile, and Governor von

Scholten being convicted in Denmark of dereliction of

duty and of exceeding his authority;

Whereas the American people declared their independence

from the British on July 4, 1776; and

Whereas the courage of these heroes serves to connect Virgin

Islanders and all Americans to their past and to reinforce

their unwavering commitment to preserve, protect, and

defend freedom: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives urges—

2 (1) the American people to recognize the histor3 ical significance of the emancipation of African

4 slaves in what is now the United States Virgin Is5 lands; and

6 (2) Virgin Islanders and all Americans to main7 tain their unwavering commitment to preserve, pro8 tect, and defend human rights and freedom.

Æ
Exhibit 32.2 

 

CERTIFICATION 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, 

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

I, Douglas P. Rosefsky, as Chief Financial Officer of North Atlantic Holding Company, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

 

(1) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: April 1, 2005
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3858 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to increase the supply of pancreatic 

islet cells for research, and to provide for better coordination of Federal 

efforts and information on islet cell transplantation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2004 

Mr. NETHERCUTT (for himself, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. BASS, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. 

FROST, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. KLINE, Mr. GREEN of 

Texas, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. WICKER, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. BECERRA, Mr. 

MOORE, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania, 

and Mr. FOSSELLA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to increase the 

supply of pancreatic islet cells for research, and to provide for better coordination of Federal efforts and information on islet cell transplantation. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pancreatic Islet Cell 

5 Transplantation Act of 2004’’. 
2 

•HR 3858 IH 

1 SEC. 2. ORGAN PROCUREMENT ORGANIZATION CERTIFI2 CATION. 

3 Section 371 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

4 U.S.C. 273) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(c) Pancreata procured by an organ procurement or7 ganization and used for islet cell transplantation or re8 search shall be counted for purposes of certification or re9 certification under subsection (b).’’. 

10 SEC. 3. ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ON PANCREATIC ISLET CELL 

11 TRANSPLANTATION. 

12 Section 429 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

13 U.S.C. 285c–3) is amended by adding at the end the fol14 lowing: 

15 ‘‘(d) In each annual report prepared by the Diabetes 

16 Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee pursuant to 

17 subsection (c), the Committee shall include an assessment 

18 of the Federal activities and programs related to pan19 creatic islet cell transplantation. Such assessment shall, 

20 at a minimum, address the following: 

21 ‘‘(1) The adequacy of Federal funding for tak22 ing advantage of scientific opportunities relating to 

23 pancreatic islet cell transplantation. 

24 ‘‘(2) Current policies and regulations affecting 

25 the supply of pancreata for islet cell transplantation. 
3 

•HR 3858 IH 

1 ‘‘(3) The effect of xenotransplantation on ad2 vancing pancreatic islet cell transplantation. 

3 ‘‘(4) The effect of United Network for Organ 

4 Sharing policies regarding pancreas retrieval and 

5 islet cell transplantation. 

6 ‘‘(5) The existing mechanisms to collect and co7 ordinate outcomes data from existing islet cell trans8 plantation trials. 

9 ‘‘(6) Implementation of multiagency clinical in10 vestigations of pancreatic islet cell transplantation. 

11 ‘‘(7) Recommendations for such legislation and 

12 administrative actions as the Committee considers 

13 appropriate to increase the supply of pancreata 

14 available for islet cell transplantation.’’. 

Æ
Form of Amendment to Restricted Stock Rights Award Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 VINTAGE PETROLEUM, INC. 
  
 AMENDMENT TO 
 RESTRICTED STOCK RIGHTS
AWARD AGREEMENT(S) 
  
 October 13, 2005 
  
 [Name and address] 
  
 Dear ___________: 
  
 1. Background. Vintage Petroleum, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), has granted to you certain performance-based restricted
stock rights (collectively, the “Rights”) under the Company’s 1990 Stock Plan, as amended, pursuant to one or more Restricted Stock Rights Award Agreements (each, an “Award Agreement”) effective as of one or more of the
following dates: May 25, 2004, December 2, 2004, March 16, 2005, and/or June 6, 2005 (each, a “Grant Date”). 
  
 2. Amendment. Each Award Agreement is hereby amended so that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in such Award Agreement, the
restrictions described in Section 4(b) of such Award Agreement shall lapse with respect to 200% of the Base Number (as defined in such Award Agreement) of Rights awarded to you pursuant to such Award Agreement at the time of the occurrence of
the merger contemplated by that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of October 13, 2005, by and among the Company, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and Occidental Transaction 1, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company (the “Merger”). For the avoidance of doubt: (a) this amendment shall only affect those Rights awarded to you on a Grant Date and shall in no way affect any performance-based restricted stock rights awarded to you by
the Company on any other date, including, without limitation, October 13, 2005; and (b) no Base Number shall be affected by this amendment unless and until the Merger occurs. 
  
 3. Effective Date. This amendment shall be effective as of the day and year first above written. 
  
 4. Full Force and Effect. Except as amended by this amendment, all
terms and provisions of each Award Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with their terms. 
  
 5. Governing Law. This amendment shall be deemed to have been made or incurred under the laws of the State of Delaware, and shall be construed and
enforced in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Delaware. 
  
 6. Counterparts. This amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 









 If you accept this amendment and agree to the foregoing terms and conditions, please so confirm by
signing and returning the duplicate copy of this amendment enclosed for that purpose. 
  

			
	 VINTAGE PETROLEUM, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 
	 Name:
	 	 
	 Title:
	 	 


  
 The foregoing
amendment is accepted by me as of October 13, 2005, and I hereby agree to the terms, conditions, and restrictions set forth in each Award Agreement, as amended hereby. 
  

 -2-
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3874

To convey for public purposes certain Federal lands in Riverside County, 

California, that have been identified for disposal. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2004

Mrs. BONO (for herself and Mrs. DAVIS of California) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL

To convey for public purposes certain Federal lands in Riverside County, California, that have been identified for 

disposal.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF BUREAU OF LAND MANAGE4 MENT LAND IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALI5 FORNIA. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—

7 (1) CONVEYANCE.—The Secretary of the Inte8 rior shall convey, without consideration and subject 

9 to valid existing rights, to S.V.D.P. Management 

10 Inc.—DBA Father Joe’s Villages (referred to in this 
2

•HR 3874 IH 

1 section as the ‘‘Villages’’), all right, title, and inter2 est of the United States in and to the parcel de3 scribed in paragraph (2) for use by the Villages for 

4 the purposes described in subsection (b). 

5 (2) PARCEL.—The parcel referred to in para6 graph (1) is the parcel of land identified for disposal 

7 and consisting of approximately 44 acres under the 

8 jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, as 

9 generally depicted on the map entitled 

10 llllllllllll, dated 

11 llllllllllllllll, 2004. 

12 (b) PURPOSES OF CONVEYANCE.—The purposes of 

13 the conveyance under section (a) are to provide a homeless 

14 shelter, a training center, and affordable housing. 

15 (c) REVERTER.—If the Villages or any subsequent 

16 owner of the land transferred under this section uses that 

17 land for purposes other than those described in subsection 

18 (b), the land (and any improvements thereon) shall imme19 diately revert to the United States to be administered 

20 under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior.

Æ
Research Questions regarding bloodstain pattern classification

Addendum to: Bloodstain Pattern Classification Research Needs Assessment Form

OSAC BPA Subcommittee March 1, 2021

Page 1 of 2

ADDENDUM

Research questions regarding bloodstain pattern classification

OSAC Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Subcommittee

March 1, 2021

Introduction

This document serves as an addendum to the OSAC Research Needs Assessment Form entitled 

“Method Development for Bloodstain Pattern Classification” established by the Bloodstain 

Pattern Analysis Subcommittee. The BPA Subcommittee is of the opinion this addendum 

provides additional details not captured in said form.

What are the problems? 

1) A written method for the classification of bloodstain patterns does not currently exist.

2) Different people (of similar competence/experience) may give different classifications 

for the same pattern. 

Evidence: CTS proficiency tests/casework testimony. Black box studies.

3) The inter and intra pattern variability is high: two impact patterns may exhibit as much 

variation as an impact pattern compared to an expiration pattern.

Evidence: BPA course exercises/personal experimentation/casework examples

4) The descriptions of patterns are sometimes/often a description of the mechanism. The 

decision-making process employed for pattern classification is not well established: while 

classifying a pattern, objective, measurable characteristics should direct the analyst into the 

correct classification.

Evidence: 

ASB Technical Report 033 Terms and Definitions in Bloodstain Pattern Analysis, First Edition 

2017

BPA language used in terminology

Why do we care about these problems?

Accurate classifications form the foundation for reliable opinions, which are vital to a fair 

outcome in court.
Research Questions regarding bloodstain pattern classification

Addendum to: Bloodstain Pattern Classification Research Needs Assessment Form

OSAC BPA Subcommittee March 1, 2021

Page 2 of 2

What are the research questions?

1) How do BPA analysts currently classify patterns?

2) What terms or data descriptors are needed to describe relevant bloodstain 

characteristics?

3) What are the significant characteristics of individual pattern types that are relevant to 

pattern classification?

4) Which criteria are necessary and/or sufficient to establish the mechanism(s) by which a 

pattern was created?

5) How much variation is there in classifications among different BPA analysts?