alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED, et al., Appellants, v. FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION, et al., Appellees.

No. 04-5079.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

April 26, 2004.

Richard M. Cooper, Williams & Connolly, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Karen Elizabeth Schifter, Eric Michael Blumberg, Daniel E. Troy, Chief Counsel, Rockville, MD, Roscoe Conklin Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Alex Michael Azar, II, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before EDWARDS, RANDOLPH, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

Upon consideration of the appellant’s brief, federal appellees’ brief, appellee Pfizer’s brief, and appellant’s reply brief; and appellant’s motion to expedite the appeal, which includes an alternative request to decide the appeal without oral argument, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the request to decide the appeal without oral argument be granted, and the district court’s judgment dated March 10, 2004 be affirmed. Regardless whether the Federal Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision is reviewed under *Skidmore v. Swift & Co.,*323 U.S. 134, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944), or *Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,*467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), the district court properly affirmed the FDA’s determination that, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301, *et seq.,*final approval of Ranbaxy’s Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDAs”) did not automatically occur upon the dismissal of the underlying patent litigation, the expiration of the patent, and the termination of the thirty-month statutory stay. The district court also properly affirmed the FDA’s conclusion that, upon the expiration of Pfizer’s patent on January 29, 2004, Ranbaxy’s “Paragraph IV” certifications became invalid, and the applicable pediatric exclusivity provision became 21 U.S.C. § 355a(c)(2)(A), the provision pertaining to “Paragraph II” certifications. *Id.*Under that provision, approval of Ranbaxy’s ANDAs is delayed six months until July 29, 2004. *See*21 U.S.C. § 355a(c)(2)(A).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
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

 – 1 – 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE OF ABRAHAM J. SOUZA 

REED SMITH LLP 

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

Martin J. Bishop (admitted pro hac vice) 

Email: mbishop@reedsmith.com 

Rebecca R. Hanson (admitted pro hac vice) 

Email: rhanson@reedsmith.com 

Abraham J. Souza (admitted pro hac vice) 

Email: asouza@reedsmith.com 

REED SMITH LLP

10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Telephone: +1 312 207 1000 

Facsimile: +1 312 207 6400 

Attorneys for Defendants UnitedHealth Group 

Inc., UnitedHealthcare, Inc., UnitedHealthcare 

Insurance Company, UnitedHealthCare 

Services, Inc., and UMR, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

RACHEL CONDRY, JANCE HOY, 

CHRISTINE ENDICOTT, LAURA BISHOP, 

FELICITY BARBER, and RACHEL CARROLL, 

on behalf of themselves and all others similarly 

situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., 

UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC., 

UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, UNITED HEALTHCARE 

SERVICES, INC., and UMR, INC., 

Defendants. 

 Case No.: 3:17-cv-00183-VC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE 

OF ABRAHAM J. SOUZA 

 

Honorable Vince Chhabria 
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 – 2 – 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE OF ABRAHAM J. SOUZA 

REED SMITH LLP 

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

 Having considered the motion to withdraw appearance of Abraham J. Souza, the Court 

hereby GRANTS the motion and directs the Clerk of Court to remove Mr. Souza from the service 

list for the above-captioned matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: _______________________ _______________________ 

 The Honorable Vince Chhabria 

 United States District Judge 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

GRANTED

Judge Vince Chhabria

March 3, 2020
Order entered February 6 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 15
- 00134
- CR RAMON MILLER, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court C ause No. F10
- 16131
- Q 

### O RDER The Court has before it appellant’s motion to establish a new timetable for the appeal. Appellant asserts that although his motion for new trial was filed on September 9, 2013 and his notice of appeal was filed on October 2, 2 013, the notice of appeal was not forwarded to this Court until counsel was appointed on January 30, 2015. We GRANT appellant’s motion as follows.
We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s record within TWENTY
- ONE DAYS of the date of t his order.
We ORDER court reporter Marissa Garza, formerly of the 204th Judicial District Court, to file the reporter’s record within FORTY
- FIVE DAYS of the date of this order.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, t o Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk; Marissa Garza, official court reporter, County Criminal Court No. 4; and to counsel for all parties.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
Lonnie Robert MUNN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2909

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. 

STEVEN FALLON, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Relators, 

v. 

MATTHEW WAYNE, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-06994-PJH 

ORDER RE MOTION FOR PARTIAL 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION RE 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

Re: Dkt. No. 145, 152, 153 

 Before the court is defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. See Dkt. 

145. The motion came on for hearing on November 10, 2022. Plaintiffs-relators 

appeared through their counsel, Stephen Jaffe. Defendants appeared through their 

counsel, Richard Jacobson. At the hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel confirmed that plaintiffs do 

not oppose the motion, which seeks summary judgment as to only the first and second 

causes of action under the federal False Claims Act. See Dkt. 150. Accordingly, based 

on the parties’ papers and on counsel’s representations at the hearing, defendants’ 

motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 145) is GRANTED. 

 At the hearing, the court also addressed plaintiffs’ administrative motion seeking 

leave to file a motion to compel. See Dkt. 152, 153. As stated at the hearing, plaintiffs’ 

request is untimely, and the administrative motion is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 14, 2022 

 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:16-cv-06994-PJH Document 159 Filed 11/14/22 Page 1 of 1
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ENRIQUE HUERTAVILLANUEVA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74320

Agency No. A097-856-023

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2010

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Jose Enrique Huerta-Villanueva, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing

FILED

JAN 06 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74320

his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order and denying his motion to

remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

discretion the denial of motions to remand, Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th

Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Huerta-Villanueva has waived any challenge to the agency’s determination

that he failed to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal. See MartinezSerrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Huerta-Villanueva’s motion

to remand because he failed to present material, previously unavailable evidence of

changed circumstances in Mexico, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), and he failed to

establish prima facie eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture,

see Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 2004) (“To qualify for

reopening under the Torture Convention, an alien must establish a prima facie case

that ‘it is more likely than not that. . . she would be tortured if removed to the

proposed country of removal.’”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Widaey DINNALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3497

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed May 10, 2019

Matthew R. McLain, of McLain Law, P.A., Longwood, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

EDWARDS, J.

Appellant, as a juvenile, pled no contest to attempted second-degree murder with a firearm. He is serving a twenty-five-year term of incarceration with a twenty-five-year firearm minimum mandatory coupled with a review hearing that will take place after twenty years. We affirm the postconviction court's summary denial of Appellant's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion. Contrary to Appellant's arguments, we have held and continue to hold that juveniles may permissibly be sentenced to mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment under these circumstances. *See**Montgomery v. State* , 230 So. 3d 1256, 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J. and EISNAUGLE, J., concur.
#### Ze Qun WANG, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-73066, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 6, 2004.*

Decided May 11, 2004.

Jisheng Li, Esq., Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, District Director, Hagatna, GU, Janice K. Redfern, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before FARRIS, NOONAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ze Qun Wang’s asylum appeal fails, because he has not shown “that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir.2003) (citations omitted).

Wang is entitled to the presumption of credibility on review, because the BIA did not explicitly make an adverse ruling as required by this Circuit. *Shoafera v. INS,*228 F.3d 1070, 1074 n.3 (9th Cir.2000) (“[T]he law of this circuit does not permit implicit adverse credibility determinations.”) (citations omitted); *Hartooni v. INS,*21 F.3d 336, 342 (9th Cir.1994) (“Absent an explicit finding that a specific statement by the petitioner is not credible we are required to accept her testimony as true.”) (citation omitted).

Even accepting Wang’s testimony as true, Wang has not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution stemming from his participation in painting anti-gov-*535eminent graffiti. No threats have been made to Wang, and he has suffered no physical harm or imprisonment. *See Singh v. INS,*134 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining that we are not likely to find persecution in the absence of physical harm, specific threats of serious harm, or imprisonment).

Moreover, the fact that the Wang obtained a valid passport and left China to work in Saipan with the Chinese government’s permission undermines Wang’s claim of persecution. *See Khourassany v. INS,*208 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir.2000) (finding no persecution when Petitioner retained his passport and was able to travel freely within and without the country).

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 4

REDACTED VERSION OF

DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 23-5 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 1
Joshua P. MOORE, DOC #R65935, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2361

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 10, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-16 Filed 06/18/18 Page 1 of 7
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-16 Filed 06/18/18 Page 2 of 7
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-16 Filed 06/18/18 Page 3 of 7
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-16 Filed 06/18/18 Page 4 of 7
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-16 Filed 06/18/18 Page 5 of 7
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-16 Filed 06/18/18 Page 6 of 7
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-16 Filed 06/18/18 Page 7 of 7
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL**

**OFFICEROF GENERAL PARTNER OF HILAND PARTNERS, LP**

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

 

In connection with theaccompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for three months endedSeptember 30, 2006 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Ken Maples, Chief Financial Officer, VicePresident-Finance and Secretary of Hiland Partners GP, LLC, the general partnerof Hiland Partners, LP (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.            The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 
| Date: November 13, 2006 | /s/ Ken Maples |
|-------------------------|----------------|
|                    |           | Ken Maples |
|                    |           | Chief Financial Officer, Vice President-Finance |
|                    | and Secretary  |
|                    |           |
|                    |           |   |
|                    |           |
|                         |                |  |  |

 

 

----
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER -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

Scott J. Sagaria (SBN 217981)

Elliot W. Gale (SBN 263326)

Joe Angelo (SBN 268542)

SAGARIA LAW, P.C.

2033 Gateway Pl., 5th Floor 

San Jose, CA 95110

Telephone: (408) 279-2288

Facsimile: (408) 297-2299

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLBI TROESTER-MILLER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, 

INC., et al,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00423-EMC

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF 

DEFENDANT EXPERIAN 

INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

TO THE COURT, CLERK OF COURT, AND ALL PARTIES:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff Colbi Troester-Miller and 

defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. that Experian Information Solutions, Inc. be 

dismissed from this action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule

41(a)(2), and that each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:17-cv-00423-EMC Document 28 Filed 05/02/17 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER -2-

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

DATED: May 2, 2017 Sagaria Law, P.C.

By: /s/ Elliot Gale

Elliot Gale

Attorney for Plaintiff Colbi Troester-Miller

DATED: May 2, 2017 Jones Day

By: /s/ Benjamin Chung Lee

Benjamin Chung Lee

Attorney for Defendant Experian 

Information Solutions, Inc.

I, Elliot Gale, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file this 

Stipulation. I hereby attest that Benjamin Chung Lee has concurred in this filing.

/s/ Elliot Gale

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the Parties, Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is 

dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

Hon. Edward M. Chen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00423-EMC Document 28 Filed 05/02/17 Page 2 of 2
Andrew Bernall JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2277

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM E. SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00157-VC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state inmate, has filed a pro se civil action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 against Assistant United States Attorney Floy E. Dawson, Supervisory Special 

FBI Agent William E. Smith and Special FBI Agent Quentin L. Smith. Bonilla has been 

disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is “under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 U.S.C. 

1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, No. C 11-3180 CW (PR); Bonilla v. Dawson, No. C 13-0951 CW 

(PR). 

The allegations in this complaint do not show that Bonilla was in imminent danger at the 

time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed in forma pauperis. Moreover, even if the IFP 

application were granted, his lawsuit would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 

486-87 (1994). Accordingly, the case is dismissed with prejudice.

The Clerk shall enter a separate judgment and close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

January 18, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00157-VC Document 3 Filed 01/18/17 Page 1 of 1
Amendment No. 2 to Capital Support Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.4 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 
 CAPITAL SUPPORT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 2 (the “Amendment”) to the Capital Support Agreement, is made as
of the 26th day of January 2009, by and between Northern Trust Corporation (the “Support Provider”) and The Northern Trust Company
(“TNT”), as securities lending agent on behalf of the Core Select Securities Lending Cash Collateral Pool (the “Fund”). 
 WHEREAS, the parties have entered into a Capital Support Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of February 21, 2008 and amended the Agreement on July 15, 2008; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to further amend the Agreement on the terms and subject to the conditions provided herein. 
 NOW THEREFORE, the parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, capitalized terms shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement. 
 2. Section 3(c)(iii) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as set forth below: 
 (iii) 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 6, 2009. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties caused this Amendment No. 2 to the Capital Support Agreement to be
executed. 
  

			
	NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ William R. Dodds, Jr.

	Name:	 	William R. Dodds, Jr.
	Title:	 	Treasurer
	
	ADDRESS FOR NOTICES:
	50 S. LaSalle St.
	Chicago, IL 60603
	Attn: William R. Dodds, Jr.
	
	THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, AS LENDING AGENT ON BEHALF OF THE CORE SELECT SECURITIES LENDING CASH COLLATERAL POOL
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jeffrey S. Benner

	Name:	 	Jeffrey S. Benner
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President
	
	ADDRESS FOR NOTICES:
	50 S. LaSalle St.
	Chicago, IL 60603
	Attn: Jeffrey S. Benner
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

LEDA CIRAOLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK NA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00053-SK (KAW)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

REQUEST TO APPEAR VIA VIDEO 

CONFERENCE AT THE 5/22/17 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

Re: Dkt. No. 31

On May 8, 2017, Plaintiff Leda Ciraolo filed a request to appear via video conference at 

the May 22, 2017 settlement conference on the grounds that her disability renders her unable to sit 

or stand for more than brief periods of time. (Dkt. No. 31 at 2.)

Plaintiff’s request to appear via video conference is GRANTED. Counsel must personally 

attend. The Court does not provide equipment or technological support, so Plaintiff and her 

attorney must both be equipped with computers with working cameras, microphones, and Skype 

software to enable the video conference. The Court will utilize counsel’s computer to 

communicate with Plaintiff during the settlement conference. Plaintiff is responsible for ensuring 

that all technology works prior to the settlement conference date. 

Plaintiff must be at her computer for the duration of the settlement conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2017

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge