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

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER RE MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES

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 RE MISCELLANEOUS 

ISSUES

The parties have provided one set of hard-copy deposition transcripts for some of the 

witnesses to be called at trial. A hard copy of the deposition transcripts of all the witnesses to be 

called at trial would be helpful to the Court in ruling on high priority objections. Therefore, the 

Court requests that the parties provide a total of 3 sets of hard-copy deposition transcripts, doublesided, in three-ring binders for all of the witnesses to be called at trial. The parties’ provision of 

these 3 hard-copy sets of deposition transcripts eliminates the need for the parties to electronically 

file these transcripts with their high priority objections, which will also avoid a multitude of 

sealing motions.

Moreover, the Court notes that while delivering documents to the Court’s law clerks, a 

member of Qualcomm Inc.’s legal team told the clerks to “settle the case for us.” This statement 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1093 Filed 01/03/19 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER RE MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES

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

appears to have been made in jest. No one from the Federal Trade Commission’s legal team was 

present. The parties are reminded that ex parte communications with the Court and its staff about 

the case are prohibited. The parties’ comments about the case should only be made in open court 

or in legal filings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1093 Filed 01/03/19 Page 2 of 2
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART QUALCOMM'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL LIST OF TRIAL EXHIBITS

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,

Plaintiffs,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART QUALCOMM'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL LIST OF TRIAL EXHIBITS

Re: Dkt. No. 1061

Applying the compelling reasons standard, the Court rules on Qualcomm’s motion to seal 

as follows. By Thursday, January 10, 2019, at 5:00 p.m., Qualcomm shall file a redacted public 

version of its list of trial exhibits consistent with the Court’s sealing rulings.

Trial Ex. No. Ruling

QX0029 DENIED.

QX0109 DENIED.

QX0120 DENIED.

QX0121 DENIED.

QX0122 DENIED.

QX0123 DENIED.

QX0124 DENIED.

QX0202 DENIED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1190 Filed 01/08/19 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART QUALCOMM'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL LIST OF TRIAL EXHIBITS

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

Trial Ex. No. Ruling

QX0204 DENIED.

QX0208 DENIED.

QX0212 DENIED.

QX0213 DENIED.

QX0214 DENIED.

QX0216 DENIED.

QX0219 DENIED.

QX0222 DENIED.

QX0536 DENIED.

QX0580 DENIED.

QX0879 DENIED.

QX0881 DENIED.

QX1170 DENIED.

QX1353 DENIED.

QX1391 DENIED.

QX1459 DENIED.

QX2260 DENIED.

QX2452 DENIED.

QX2454 DENIED.

QX2456 DENIED.

QX2459 DENIED.

QX2462 DENIED.

QX2464 DENIED.

QX2778 DENIED.

QX2884 DENIED.

QX2928 DENIED.

QX2929 DENIED.

QX9066 DENIED.

QX9073 DENIED.

QX9094 DENIED.

QX9095 DENIED.

QX9109 DENIED.

QX9115 GRANTED.

QX9128 DENIED.

QX9129 DENIED.

QX9130 DENIED.

QX9134 DENIED.

QX9135 DENIED.

QX9136 DENIED.

QX9137 DENIED.

QX9155 DENIED.

QX9186 DENIED.

QX9190 DENIED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1190 Filed 01/08/19 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART QUALCOMM'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL LIST OF TRIAL EXHIBITS

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

Trial Ex. No. Ruling

QX9203 DENIED.

QX9208 DENIED.

QX9213 DENIED.

QX9217 DENIED.

QX9221 DENIED.

QX9222 DENIED.

QX9225 DENIED.

QX9234 DENIED.

QX9236 DENIED.

QX9237 DENIED.

QX9239 DENIED.

QX9243 DENIED.

QX9255 DENIED.

QX9282 DENIED.

QX9300 DENIED.

QX9301 DENIED.

QX9302 DENIED.

QX9307 DENIED.

QX9308 DENIED.

QX9314 DENIED.

QX9325 DENIED.

QX9327 DENIED.

QX9335 DENIED.

QX9336 DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1190 Filed 01/08/19 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6643

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Petitioner - Appellee, 

v. 

DUANE LETROY BERRY, 

Respondent - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:20-hc-02085-M) 

Submitted: August 24, 2023 Decided: August 29, 2023

Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit 

Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Duane Letroy Berry, Appellant Pro Se. Genna Danelle Petre, Special Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6643 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Duane Letroy Berry seeks to appeal the district court’s scheduling order that also 

denied as moot and denied his pro se motions issued in his pending civil commitment 

proceeding. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). The order Berry 

seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Berry’s motions to 

return property, to forward the record, and for a temporary administrative stay and dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6643 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Edward M. Jamison, Chief Executive Officer of Community Bancorp, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Community Bancorp; 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 we 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; and
5.  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 May 12, 2005 /s/ Edward M. Jamison      Edward M. Jamison   Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1


                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In  connection  with the  accompanying  quarterly  report on Form 10-Q of Bridge
Capital  Holdings for the quarter ended  September 30, 2006, I, Daniel P. Myers,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Bridge Capital Holdings, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

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

(2)  the information  contained in such Report fairly presents,  in all material
     respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operations  of Bridge
     Capital Holdings.



Date: November 2, 2006     /s/ DANIEL P. MYERS
                           _________________________________________
                               Daniel P. Myers
                               President and Chief Executive Officer
Derek Martin GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. Angela Mary GRIFFIN, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4078

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 7, 2019

Derek Martin Griffin, pro se, Appellant.

Clark H. Henderson of Henderson Law Firm, PA, Shalimar, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

*283In this dissolution case, the former husband challenges the equitable distribution of the $ 72,000 he received from the settlement of his worker's compensation case. We summarily reject the former husband's argument that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the settlement proceeds were subject to equitable distribution as a marital asset, but because only about $ 6,400 of the settlement proceeds remained as of the date of the final hearing,1 a specific finding of misconduct was required for the court to include the entire amount of the settlement in the equitable distribution scheme. *See**Olivarez v. Olivarez* , 250 So. 3d 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) ("Absent a showing of misconduct, it is error to include assets in an equitable distribution scheme that have been diminished or dissipated during the dissolution proceedings.") (internal quotations omitted); *Walker v. Walker* , 85 So. 3d 553, 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ("[I]n order to determine that a spouse has dissipated marital assets, the trial court must make a specific finding of intentional misconduct based on evidence showing that the marital funds were used for one party's own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.") (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, we reverse the equitable distribution portion of the dissolution judgment and remand to the trial court for additional findings or reconsideration of the equitable distribution scheme. The dissolution judgment is otherwise affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.

Wolf, Wetherell, and Makar, JJ., concur.

1

The former husband testified that he used the rest of the proceeds to pay legal fees, child support, and living expenses during the dissolution proceeding, but the trial court made no findings on the veracity of this testimony or the amount of the remaining settlement proceeds.
Kirk M. FOSTER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D19-0692

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 15, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 01, 2019

Kirk M. Foster, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied on the merits.

Roberts, Ray, and Jay, JJ., concur.
Earnest HENRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2210

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 7, 2019

Earnest Henry, Jasper, pro se.

Oscar H. Eaton, of Office of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, Casselberry, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm this *Anders*1 appeal in all respects; however, we remand for a correction of two scrivener's errors on the judgment and sentence. On remand, the court is instructed to correct the judgment and sentence to reflect that Appellant was found guilty by a jury, as it erroneously indicates Appellant entered a plea. In addition, the judgment and sentence should reflect that on Count I, Appellant was convicted of fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer with lights and sirens activated, a third-degree felony.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERROR.

EVANDER, C.J., ORFINGER, and SASSO, JJ., concur.

1

*Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 03-2663

BRIAN TAMBORELLI,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL OF LAW, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Selya, Lynch and Lipez,

Circuit Judges.

Brian D. Tamborelli on brief pro se.

Allen N. David, Elizabeth A. Houlding and Peabody & Arnold

LLP, on brief for appellees.

December 3, 2004
Per Curiam. Brian Tamborelli has appealed the district

court's dismissal of his complaint, in which he contends that

Southern New England School of Law (SNESL) and several of its

officers solicited his attendance and tuition money by, inter alia,

fraudulently misrepresenting the status of its ability to obtain

certification by the American Bar Association (ABA). We have

reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. We affirm.

We have recently considered substantially identical

actions filed by other SNESL graduates. See Rodi v. S. New Engl.

Sch. of Law, ___ F.3d ___ (1st Cir. 2004) [2004 WL 2537204];

Jolicoeur v. S. New Engl. Sch. of Law, 104 Fed. Appx. 745 (1st Cir.

2004) (per curiam). Tamborelli's action suffered from the same

defect as Jolicoeur's: it was not timely commenced. By no later

than December 1999, Tamborelli knew that any statements regarding

the imminent likelihood of ABA certification were false. By that

time, the ABA had twice denied SNESL's application for

accreditation and, in derogation of a promise Tamborelli alleges

was made, SNESL had failed to appeal that denial. Tamborelli makes

no cogent argument for any later accrual date. Tamborelli's

action, filed in July of 2003, was, therefore, barred by the threeyear statute of limitations. Unlike the complaint filed by

plaintiff Rodi, the timeliness of Tamborelli's federal complaint is

not redeemed by any savings statute. Cf. Rodi v. S. New Engl. Sch.

of Law, ___ F.3d at ___ [2004 WL 2537204, at *10].

-2-
-3-

We reject Tamborelli's criticism that the district court

did not allow him to amend his complaint. For one thing he never

sought to amend his complaint in the district court. For another

thing, nothing he has stated in his appellate briefing suggests

that he could successfully overcome the time bar. Indeed, his

reply brief expresses his own contradictory views on whether any

amendment would be futile.

Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the district

court's failure to recuse itself. See United States v. Ayala, 289

F.3d 16, 27 (1st Cir. 2002) (limning the standard of review).

We need go no further. For the reasons stated, the order

of dismissal is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert E. Swanson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ridgewood Energy M
Fund, LLC;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.




Date: November 17, 2005


/s/ Robert E. Swanson
Robert E. Swanson
President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
##### 



EXHIBIT 4.1
 
 STOCK CERTIFICATE CUSIP NO: 42327L 10 1 AMERICAN BANK NOTE COMPANY
    
    PRODUCTION COORDINATOR: MIKE PETERS 931-490-1714711 ARMSTRONG LANE
    
    PROOF OF MARCH 23, 2007COLUMBIA, TENNESSEE 38401
    
    HELIOS & MATHESON NORTH AMERICA INC.(931) 388-3003
    
    TSB 26575 FCSALES: R. JOHNS 516-731-2885
    
    Operator :      Ron/ ETHER 7 / LIVE JOBS / H / HELIOS 26575 FC
    
    New
 PLEASE INITIAL THE APPROPRIATE SELECTION FOR THIS PROOF:  OK AS IS  OK WITH CHANGES  MAKE CHANGES
AND SEND ANOTHER PROOF
 Colors Selected for Printing: LOGO IS OF LOW RESOLUTION AND NOT SUITABLE FOR
PRINTING.
 COLOR:
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-10-00014- CR

John Kennedy Gre en, aka John Ke nneth Graham , aka John Ke nneth Jackson , Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 264 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 648 90, H ONO RAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE P RESIDING

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

Appellant’s brief was due Marc h 10, 2010. The brief has not been rec eived and appellant’ s appointed attorney , Michae l F. Whit e, did not respond to this Court’s notice that the brief is overdue. The appeal is abate d. The trial court shall conduct a hearing t o deter mine whether appellant desires to prosec ute t his appea l and, if so, whether the attorney it appointed to repr esent appellant has abandone d the appea l. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)( 2). The court shall make appropr iate finding s and rec ommendations. I f n ec es sary , the court shall appoint substitut e counsel who will eff ectively repr esent appellant in this cause . A rec ord from this hearing, incl u d i n g copies of all finding s and order s an d a t ransc ription of the court repor ter’s notes, shall be forwa rded to theClerk of this Court for filing as a supplemental rec ord no later than June 11, 2010. Tex. R.

App. P. 38.8(b)(3)
.

Be fore Justices Patterson, Puryear and He nson Abated Filed: May

14, 2010 Do Not Publish

2
Gilbert GERMEIL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2304

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 16, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.