alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 1063

Applying the compelling reasons standard, the Court DENIES the parties’ joint 

administrative motion to file under seal the new information appearing in the FTC’s Amended 

Exhibit List. ECF No. 1063.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1170 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 1
# L_2017137EN.01004001.xml

| 24.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 137/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 137/40

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products, amending Regulations (EC) No 999/2001, (EC) No 396/2005, (EC) No 1069/2009, (EC) No 1107/2009, (EU) No 1151/2012, (EU) No 652/2014, (EU) 2016/429 and (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulations (EC) No 1/2005 and (EC) No 1099/2009 and Council Directives 98/58/EC, 1999/74/EC, 2007/43/EC, 2008/119/EC and 2008/120/EC, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 854/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directives 89/608/EEC, 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 91/496/EEC, 96/23/EC, 96/93/EC and 97/78/ EC and Council Decision 92/438/EEC (Official Controls Regulation)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 95 of 7 April 2017
  )

Throughout the text of this Regulation:

for:

‘(EU) 2017/...’,

read:

‘(EU) 2017/625’;

for:

‘OJ L ..., p. ...’,

read:

‘
  OJ L 95, 7.4.2017, p. 1
  ’.

On page 95, in Article 135:

for:

‘1.   Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (*1) shall apply to the extent that the information processed through the IMSOC contains personal data as defined in point (a) of Article 2 of Directive 95/46/EC and in point (a) of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

[...]

read:

‘1.   Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) shall apply to the extent that the information processed through the IMSOC contains personal data as defined in point (a) of Article 2 of Directive 95/46/EC and in point (a) of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

[...]

On page 113, signatory:

for:

‘
  For the Council

The President

...’,

read:

‘
  For the Council

The President

I. BORG
  ’;

for:

‘
  For the European Parliament

The President

...’,

read:

‘
  For the European Parliament

The President

A. TAJANI
  ’.

---

(*1)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1).’,

*1

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1).’.

1

---
Skip to Main Content Logout My Account Search Menu New Civil Search Refine Search Back Location : All MNCIS Sites - Case Search Help

REGISTER OF ACTIONS

CASE NO. 27-CV-16-17753

State of Minnesota, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency vs Volkswagen 

Aktiengesellschaft, d/b/a Volkswagen Group d/b/a Volkswagen AG, 

Volkswagen Group of America Inc, Audi AG, Porsche AG, d/b/a Porsche 

AG, Porsche Cars North America Inc et. al.

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case Type: Civil Other/Misc.

Date Filed: 12/08/2016

Location: - Hennepin Civil

Judicial Officer: Sipkins, Thomas M.

PARTY INFORMATION

Lead Attorneys

Defendant Audi AG Pro Se

Defendant Dr Ing h c F Pro Se

Defendant Porsche AG Pro Se

 d/b/a Porsche AG

Defendant Porsche AG Pro Se

Defendant Porsche Cars North America Inc Pro Se

Defendant Volkswagen AG Pro Se

Defendant Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft Pro Se

 d/b/a Volkswagen Group d/b/a Volkswagen AG

Defendant Volkswagen Group Pro Se

Defendant Volkswagen Group of America Inc Pro Se

Plaintiff Minnesota Pollution Control Agency KATHERINE T KELLY

Retained

651-757-1308(W)

Plaintiff State of Minnesota KATHERINE T KELLY

Retained

651-757-1308(W)

EVENTS & ORDERS OF THE COURT

OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS

12/08/2016 Civil Cover Sheet Doc ID# 1

12/08/2016 Summons Doc ID# 2

12/08/2016 Complaint-Civil Doc ID# 3

12/08/2016 Notice of Case Filing Doc ID# 4

Page 1 of 1

http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=1623889731 12/14/2016

Case 3:17-cv-00187-CRB Document 1-2 Filed 12/22/16 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FINJAN LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF 

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO 

SUBMIT STIPULATED PROPOSED 

REDACTIONS TO THE COURT’S 

ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 ON 

OR BEFORE OCTOBER 7, 2020

On September 30, 2020, the Court issued and conditionally sealed its Order Granting in Part 

and Denying in Part Cisco’s Renewed Motion In Limine No. 4. See ECF 723. The Order references 

materials that were filed under seal in this case. To give the parties an opportunity to request 

redactions to the Order, the Court directs the parties to submit a stipulated request for redactions (or 

indicate that no redactions are requested) on or before October 7, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2020

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 724 Filed 09/30/20 Page 1 of 1
FENTON & KELLER

ATTORNEYS AT LA W

MONTEREY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

{CEP-01028645;1} JOINT SETTLEMENT STATUS REPORT 

5:17-CV-00007 LHK

CHRISTOPHER E. PANETTA (Bar No. 175127)

EVAN J. ALLEN (Bar. No. 310617)

FENTON & KELLER

2801 Monterey-Salinas Highway

Post Office Box 791

Monterey, California 93942

Telephone: (831) 373-1241

Facsimile: (831) 373-7219

CPanetta@FentonKeller.com

Eallen@FentonKeller.com

Attorneys for Defendant COUNTY OF 

MONTEREY

Karen E. Ford Esq.

SW Ocean Ave & Mission, Suite 208

P.O. Box 287

Carmel-by-the-Sea, California 93921-0287

831-250-6433

Fax 831-250-6844

karen@fordslaw.com

SBN 88358

Attorney for Plaintiff JACQUELINE ZHANG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JACQUELINE ZHANG,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY, 

MONTEREY COUNTY RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT AGENCY, and 

MONTEREY COUNTY PARKS 

DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:17-CV-00007 LHK

JOINT SETTLEMENT STATUS REPORT

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /
FENTON & KELLER

ATTORNEYS AT LA W

MONTEREY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

{CEP-01028645;1} - 2 - JOINT SETTLEMENT STATUS REPORT

5:17-CV-00007 LHK

Pursuant to the Court’s May 19, 2020 Order Setting Settlement Conference, Plaintiff, 

JACQUELINE ZHANG, an individual, and Defendant COUNTY OF MONTEREY, participated 

in a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Cousins. The parties were unable to reach a 

settlement.

Dated: September 8, 2020 FORD & ASSOCIATES, LLC

By: /s/ Karen E. Ford

Karen E. Ford, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff 

JACQUELINE ZHANG

Dated: September 8, 2020 FENTON & KELLER, PC

By: /s/ Christopher E. Panetta

Christopher E. Panetta, Esq.

Evan J. Allen, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant 

COUNTY OF MONTEREY
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

NOV 29, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-13188

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00175-CR-T-27-MAP

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

CRUZ VALDOVINOS MANCILLA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(November 29, 2007)

Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John Badalamenti, appointed counsel for Cruz Valdovinos Mancilla in this
2

direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Mancilla’s convictions and

sentences are AFFIRMED.
# L_2017295EN.01005901.xml

| 14.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 295/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 295/59

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2017/2073

of 13 November 2017

amending Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 27 December 2001, the Council adopted Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 27 December 2001, the Council adopted Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (1).

| (2) | The Council has determined that there are no longer grounds for keeping one entity on the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. The restrictive measures applying to that entity were suspended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1711 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Council has determined that there are no longer grounds for keeping one entity on the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. The restrictive measures applying to that entity were suspended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1711 (2).

| (3) | Common Position 2001/931/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Common Position 2001/931/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Article 5 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, the second paragraph is deleted.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 13 November 2017.

For the Council

The President

F. MOGHERINI

---

(1)  Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 93).

1

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1711 of 27 September 2016 amending Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ L 259I, 27.9.2016, p. 3).

2

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 6, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-60064

Summary Calendar

 

SALWA ZINHOUM MOHAMED ELBASHLLI,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A78 582 197

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Salwa Zinhoum Mohamed Elbashlli petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the

immigration judge’s (IJ’s) decision to deny her application for

asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and

Nationality Act (INA) as well as the Convention Against Torture

(CAT). Elbashlli argues that the BIA erred in determining that she

had not established entitlement to asylum and withholding of

removal under both the INA and the CAT. 
No. 04-60064

-2-

This court will uphold the factual findings that an alien is

not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal if those findings

are supported by substantial evidence. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76,

78-79 (5th Cir. 1994). The substantial evidence standard requires

that the decision be based on the evidence presented and that the

decision be substantially reasonable. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78

F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). The BIA’s decision is supported by

substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a contrary

conclusion as to either Elbashlli’s INA claims or her CAT claim.

See id. Accordingly, Elbashlli’s petition for review is DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 389 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 389

Supporting the designation of September 2021 as ``National Alcohol and 
                    Drug Addiction Recovery Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 28, 2021

  Mr. King (for himself, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Manchin, and Mr. 
 Whitehouse) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
        the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Supporting the designation of September 2021 as ``National Alcohol and 
                    Drug Addiction Recovery Month''.

Whereas the theme for National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month in 2021 
        is ``Recovery is for Everyone: Every Person, Every Family, Every 
        Community'';
Whereas more than 92,000 individuals in the United States suffered a fatal 
        alcohol or drug overdose during 2020, an increase of approximately 30 
        percent as compared to 2019;
Whereas during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, increased 
        isolation and reduced or disrupted access to treatment programs have 
        contributed to an increase in individuals reporting anxiety and 
        depressive disorders when compared to the previous year, and 13 percent 
        of Americans reported starting or increasing substance use;
Whereas, in 2019, there were approximately 21,000,000 individuals in the United 
        States aged 18 or older in recovery from alcohol and drug addiction;
Whereas the estimated total cost to the economy of prescription opioid misuse is 
        $78,500,000,000 annually, including the costs of healthcare, lost 
        productivity, and involvement of the criminal justice system;
Whereas individuals with substance use disorder may face stigma from health 
        professionals, as well as friends and family;
Whereas it has been demonstrated that stigma can be a barrier for individuals 
        with substance use disorder to accessing treatment and engaging in 
        recovery; and
Whereas peer-supported communities offer individuals with substance use disorder 
        better success in recovery by addressing the personal and emotional 
        effects of addiction and easing reintegration: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) recognizes the importance of education for the 
        prevention of substance use disorder;
            (2) supports efforts to explore the means by which 
        integrated care, community, and sense of purpose can lead to 
        effective and sustainable treatment of substance use disorder; 
        and
            (3) shows appreciation and gratitude for family members, 
        friends, and other individuals who support individuals in 
        recovery from substance use disorder.
                                 <all>
```
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-8 Filed 06/18/18 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-8 Filed 06/18/18 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-8 Filed 06/18/18 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-8 Filed 06/18/18 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-8 Filed 06/18/18 Page 5 of 5
New Technology Indicator for 

Technological Progress

Wendy Li

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 

The 2015 Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology 

Research Conference

Date: December 1, 2015
Motivation

•Demand for international comparability of innovations is 

increasing; however, it is difficult to achieve (Hall and Jaffe, 

2012). 

• Three ways to measure technology (Keller, 2010):

1. R&D investments (inputs)

2. Patents (outputs)

3. Multifactor Productivity (MFP; impacts of technology)

•Empirical drawbacks of MFP: It is difficult to conduct crosscountry comparisons and has tremendous data 

requirements (OECD, 2001). 
Methodology

•The New Technology Indicator: R&D depreciation rate (Li, 

2012 for detailed methodology)

• Drivers of R&D depreciation rate: Pace of technological

progress and degree of market competition (Hall, 1997)

 Appropriability condition: 

U.S. technology leaders have smaller R&D depreciation rates 

than followers (Li, 2015). 

Hypothesis: in a free trade environment, an industry in 

country A has a higher technological advantage than its 

counterpart in country B is expected to have a smaller R&D 

depreciation rate. 
Data

•Countries: the U.S., China, Germany, S. Korea, and Japan 

• Industries: the motors, the pharmaceutical, the computer, 

electronic, and optical products, and the electrical equipment 

industries (cover all of Japan’s high-tech industries)

• Period: The majority of the data cover the decade of the 2000s, 

Hut China’s data is shorter HeIause it started reporting R&D 

investments in 2006. 

• Sources: BEA, Japan’s CaHinet OffiIe, OECD, and CEIC datasets.
Annual R&D Intensity 

for Each Industry across Countries

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Year

R&D Intensity

Pharmaceutical

China

Germany

Japan

Korea

US

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

Year

R&D Intensity

Computer/Electronic/Optical

China

Germany

Japan

Korea

US

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

Year

R&D Intensity

Motors

China

Germany

Japan

Korea

US

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

Year

R&D Intensity

Electrical/Machinery

China

Japan

US
Cross-Country Comparison I: the 

Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Industry
Cross-Country Comparison II: 

the Motor Industry 
Comparison on R&D Depreciation Rate and 

MFP Level between the U.S. and Japan 
Time-Varying R&D Depreciation Pattern 

vs. Jorgenson et al. ふヲヰヱ4ぶ’s MFP

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Year



Motors

US

Japan
Time-Varying R&D Depreciation Pattern 

vs. Jorgenson et al. ふヲヰヱ4ぶ’s MFP

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Year



Computer, Electronic, and Optical Products

US

Japan
Conclusion

• Countries are different in technology. 

• Based on data for four high-tech industries over 

five countries, the new indicator shows promising 

results. 

• The new indicator is faster and cheaper to deliver 

cross-country comparisons in technology.
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER COMPELLING FTC TO FILE JANUARY 7, 2019 WITNESS LIST

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER COMPELLING FTC TO FILE 

JANUARY 7, 2019 WITNESS LIST

On January 4, 2019, the parties agreed to file their list of witnesses 2 days before the 

witnesses are called. As of nearly 5:00 p.m. on January 6, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission 

(“FTC”) has not yet filed its list of witnesses for Monday, January 7, 2019. Knowledge of the 

witnesses would be helpful to the Court in determining when third party sealing motions must be 

decided. The FTC is ordered to file its January 7, 2019 witness list by 6:00 p.m. on January 6, 

2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1141 Filed 01/06/19 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER COMPELLING FTC TO FILE JANUARY 7, 2019 WITNESS LIST

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Dated: January 6, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1141 Filed 01/06/19 Page 2 of 2