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

LEWIS DOMINIC SHAW,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. THOMAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00462-YGR (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO PROVIDE 

REQUIRED INFORMATION NECESSARY 

TO LOCATE DEFENDANTS HANSEN

AND DORFMAN

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the present pro se prisoner complaint under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Thereafter, the Court issued its Order of Service.

Service has been ineffective on Defendants M. Hansen and Dorfman. In an Order dated 

September 26, 2017, Plaintiff was directed to provide the Court with the required information 

necessary to locate these Defendants. Dkt. 38. He was also informed that the failure to do so shall 

result in the dismissal of all claims against these Defendants. 

Plaintiff has filed a request for an extension of time to provide the Court with the required 

information necessary to locate these Defendants.1 Dkt. 41. Having read and considered 

Plaintiff’s request, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is GRANTED. 

The time in which Plaintiff may provide the Court with the required information necessary to 

locate these Defendants will be extended up to and including December 15, 2017. Failure to do 

so by the new deadline shall result in the dismissal of all claims against these Defendants. 

This Order terminates Docket No. 41. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

 

1

Plaintiff also requests an extension of time to provide the Court with the required 

information necessary to locate Defendant D. George. See Dkt. 41. However, the Court considers 

such a request as moot because the record shows that Defendant George has been served and has 

since filed an answer to the complaint. Dkt. 42.

November 17, 2017
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BELINDA JARAMILLO, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 08-71302 Agency No. A074-807-825
ORDER *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 6, 2013 Deferred February 28, 2013 Pasadena, California Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TROTT, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. This case is resubmitted effective as of the file date of this order. On January 23, 2014, the Board of Immigration Appeals responded by granting Jaramillo’s motion to remand to the Immigration Judge for consideration of new evidence and for a new decision. In light of the Board’s remand for further 

# FILED
JAN 31 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.proceedings and a new decision on the issu e of whether Jaramillo was coerced into providing information regarding alleged a lien smuggling, there is no longer a final order of removal in this case, and this Court no longer has jurisdiction over the petition for review. See Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft , 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir. 2002). Therefore, Respondent’s request to dismiss the petition for review is hereby GRANTED. This order shall act as and for the mandate of this court.
Exhibit 47

- Filed Under Seal -

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-48 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6981
DONTEZ LAMONT SIMUEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAULA SMITH; REGGIE WEISNER; WHITNER; MATT CLARK; NIMAN; VALERIE CARSWELL; BELL; HATTIE PIMPONG; MITCH JOHNSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:04-cv-00182) Submitted: July 20, 2007 Decided: August 15, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dontez Lamont Simuel, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Dontez Lamont Simuel appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Simuel v. Smith , No. 5:04-cv-00182 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 5, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Consejos sobre los

medicamentos y los

dispositivos al cuidar

de otros

¿Ayuda usted con el cuidado de un ser querido 

en casa o chequea cómo se encuentra cuando 

usted está fuera de la ciudad? Uno quiere 

ayudar a que sus seres queridos se mantengan 

lo más saludable posible, pero puede ser difícil 

administrar sus medicamentos y dispositivos 

médicos. Los cambios en el tratamiento 

también pueden ser un problema.

Use estos cuatro (4) consejos sobre cómo 

usted, su ser querido y su proveedor de 

servicios de salud pueden crear un plan para 

usar los medicamentos eficazmente.

1. Conozca los hechos

2. Siga las indicaciones

3. Manténgase organizado

4. Esté preparado

LA OFICINA DE SALUD DE LA MUJER DE LA FDA

www.fda.gov/caregivertips
La Oficina de Salud de la Mujer de la FDA

1. Conozca los hechos

Usted necesita saber para qué es cada 

medicamento y cómo se debe tomar. También 

debe saber cómo funciona cada dispositivo. 

Cuando visite al médico, usted o su ser 

querido deben preguntar:

¿Cómo se llama la medicina?

Cuánta medicina debería tomar su ser querido 

y cuándo debería tomarla?

¿Cuáles son los efectos secundarios o las 

advertencias especiales?

¿Qué puede hacer si su ser querido tiene 

problemas para tomar o tolerar su medicamento?

¿Cómo podemos deshacernos de los 

medicamentos y dispositivos viejos o sin usar?

2018

Consejos a fin de crear un plan de atención

2. Siga las indicaciones

Tomar un medicamento de más o de menos 

puede enfermar gravemente a su ser 

querido. Utilice los medicamentos y los 

dispositivos según sus indicaciones. Antes 

de comenzar:

Pida ayuda a un

proveedoor de

servicios de salud.

Utilice la herramienta

correcta; administre la

cantidad correcta.

Lea la etiqueta y

demás información.

Lea las instrucciones sobre

cómo limpiar el dispositivo;

no debe usar productos

de limpieza caseros

para limpiar algunos

dispositivos.

3. Manténgase organizado

Simples pasos pueden ayudar a su ser 

querido a mantenerse seguro y a seguir 

su rutina de medicación.También pueden 

facilitar su trabajo.

Mantenga una

lista de las

medicinas.

Fije

recordatorios.

Guarde las

medicinas bajo llave 

y en un lugar difícil 

de alcanzar.

Esté al pendiente de cambios en la salud de su 

ser querido. Avise a su proveedor de servicios 

de salud cualquier problema. Usted puede 

informar problemas con sus medicamentos a la 

Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos 

(FDA, por sus siglas en inglés). 

www.fda.gov/MedWatch/Report.

Aprenda más a través de: www.fda.gov/caregivertips

4. Esté preparado

Que no lo cojan desprevenido; haga un plan 

para casos de emergencia.

Empaque un kit con suministros médicos y 

baterías. Coloque el kit en un lugar que sea 

fácil de acceder para su ser querido.

Incluya una copia de la lista de medicamentos 

de su ser querido y otra información médica 

en el kit.

Pregunte cómo manejar las medicinas o 

los dispositivos afectados por el agua una 

inundación o por el calor.

Informe a la compañía de electricidad y al 

departamento de bomberos si hay un 

dispositivo médico en el hogar de su 

ser querido que necesita energía.
EXHIBIT 32

                                CERTIFICATION OF
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of U.S.B. Holding Co., Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), Thomas E.
Hales, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven T. Sabatini, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant toss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
to the best of his knowledge that:

     (1) The 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.

/s/Thomas E. Hales                                         Date: August 13, 2003
------------------------                                   ---------------------
Thomas E. Hales
Chief Executive Officer

/s/Steven T. Sabatini                                      Date: August 13, 2003
------------------------                                   ---------------------
Steven T. Sabatini
Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Moses JACKSON v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES

CR-16-1051

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Exhibit 11

- Filed Under Seal -

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-12 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT
32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification







Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Xinyinhai Technology,
Ltd. (the “Company”) certify that:




1.           The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2010
(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




2.           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







May
      14, 2010
            /s/ Tian
      LingTian
      Ling (Chief Executive Officer)/s/ Du
      SongDu
      Song (Chief Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Statement of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1850, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of The Wilber Corporation (the
"Company"), hereby certifies that to his knowledge on the date hereof:

      (a) the Form 10-Q of the Company for the three month period ended March
      31, 2004, filed on the date hereof with the 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; and

      (b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      as of and for the period covered by this report.


                                           /s/ Joseph E. Sutaris
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Joseph E. Sutaris
                                           Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
                                           Date:  May 7, 2004


                                       24
EX PARTE Anthony GOLSTON

CR-17-0067

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. granted.
# L_2018060EN.01003901.xml

| 2.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 60/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 60/39

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2018/312

of 27 February 2018

appointing a member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020.

| (2) | A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Iñigo de la SERNA HERNÁIZ, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Iñigo de la SERNA HERNÁIZ,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:

| — | Ms Concepción GAMARRA RUIZ-CLAVIJO, Alcaldesa de Logroño. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ms Concepción GAMARRA RUIZ-CLAVIJO, Alcaldesa de Logroño.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 27 February 2018.

For the Council

The President

E. ZAHARIEVA

---

(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/116 of 26 January 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42).

1

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/190 of 5 February 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25).

2

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/994 of 23 June 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70).

3

---
The Role of the Hospital Characteristics in 

Setting Appropriate Yardsticks 

for Hospital Profiling

November 5, 2013

Presentation to the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology 

Research Conference

Washington, DC

Frank Yoon
Overview

2 

 Recap: statistical model

 Illustration: Pneumonia mortality rate 

Inpatient Quality Indicator #20

 Look ahead: the role of hospital characteristics

– Risk adjustment

– Stabilization
Risk Adjustment

3 
Smoothing

4 
Smoothing

5 
Smoothing

6 
Pneumonia Mortality Rate

7 
 Risk adjustment

– Remove variation due to patient case mix

– Recalibrate expectation of quality

 Stabilization

– Smoothing unstable estimates might mask 

true variation

– Prior assumptions play a big role

• Bigger in low-information settings

• Statistical challenge: what is the prior?

Statistical Context

8 
 Risk adjustment

– Level the playing field

– Certain hospital types may take on unobserved risk

 Stabilization

– Small hospitals present unstable estimates

– Variation in quality may depend on hospital type

– Prior assumptions set different expectations

• Empirically testable

• Policy challenge: what is the message?

Policy Context

9 
Hospital Characteristics in Risk Adjustment

10
Hospital Characteristics in Stabilization

11
Potential Enhancements

12

 Empirical Bayes framework

– Elucidate assumptions about prior distribution

– Achieve credible posterior inferences

 Unified modeling

– Perform risk adjustment and stabilization in one fell 

swoop 

– Computationally feasible
Empirical Bayes in Hospital Profiling

13

 Decomposition of signal and noise

h h

hh

h h

h

hhh

RAR

RAR

N

RAR

Posterior |

Data |

Error ),0(~

True rate Prior~

2

θ

θ

σε

θ

+= εθ
Setting the Yardstick

14
Yardstick from a Gamma Prior

15
Addressing Overshrinkage

16

Does smoothing mask variation in true rate?

 Restrictive prior distributions can hide possible 

outliers

 Prior means of true rate may or may not depend 

on peer grouping

 In the policy context expectations matter
The Effect of Stabilization

17
Mixture of Normals by Volume Quintile

18
Yardstick from a Gamma Prior

19
Yardstick from Volume Peer Groups

20
Peer Groups by Volume Quintiles

21
Policy Implication

22

 It depends on the application

– Self-monitoring

– Public reporting

– Pay for performance

 What is the message?

– Leveling the playing field in risk adjustment is not a 

testable exercise

– Setting expectations via the prior is empirically 

justifiable, “potentially resolvable”
Research Implications

23

 Standing by our prior, with or without peer 

grouping

 Empirical justification

– Literature review

– Exploratory data analysis

– Hypothesis driven

– Simulation based
For More Information

24

 Please contact:

– Frank Yoon

• fyoon@mathematica-mpr.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         672,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               24,324,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (513,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,691,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,629,000
<PP&E>                                      12,420,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,773,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              70,634,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       28,311,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,211,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                70,634,000
<SALES>                                    226,872,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           226,872,000
<CGS>                                      205,224,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              232,379,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             994,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,501,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   794,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,295,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.10)


</TABLE>
PLAINTIFF FTC’S RESPONSE TO MEDIATEK’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK

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

Jennifer Milici, D.C. Bar No. 987096

J. Alexander Ansaldo, Va. Bar No. 75870

Philip J. Kehl, D.C. Bar No. 1010284

Daniel Matheson, D.C. Bar No. 502490

Mark Woodward, D.C. Bar No. 479537

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

(202) 326-2912; (202) 326-3496 (fax)

jmilici@ftc.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

vs.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a 

Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE 

COMMISSION’S RESPONSE TO 

MEDIATEK’S ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO SEAL CONFIDENTIAL 

INFORMATION

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1133 Filed 01/06/19 Page 1 of 2
1

PLAINTIFF FTC’S RESPONSE TO MEDIATEK’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK

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

On January 4, 2019, non-party MediaTek Inc. (“MediaTek”) filed an administrative 

motion to seal portions of identified proposed trial exhibits and to prevent counsel for the parties 

from eliciting public testimony from a live Day 2 witness, Mr. Finbarr Moynihan, regarding 

identified subjects. (ECF No. 1124, at 1.) As to testimony, MediaTek “asks that the Court 

exercise its discretion to preclude any question by the parties in open court, and to direct the 

parties to examine Mr. Moynihan on these subjects only in closed session. In the alternative, 

MediaTek requests that any examination on these subjects in open court be tailored to avoid 

disclosing detailed, specific testimony about these subjects.” Id. at 1-2.

The FTC does not oppose MediaTek’s motion to seal. The motion is narrowly targeted at 

sensitive business information that meets the applicable “compelling reasons” standard. 

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). The FTC further 

states that it expects to ask questions that may elicit testimony regarding some of the topics 

identified in MediaTek’s motion to seal and that it is not possible to tailor its questions to avoid 

these topics. The FTC therefore anticipates that if the Court grants MediaTek’s motion, a limited

portion of the FTC’s examination of Mr. Moynihan would have to proceed in closed session. 

Dated: January 6, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

/s/ Mark Woodward 

Mark Woodward

Jennifer Milici

Daniel Matheson

J. Alexander Ansaldo

Philip J. Kehl

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

(202) 326-2912; (202) 326-3496 (fax)

jmilici@ftc.gov

Attorneys for Federal Trade Commission

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1133 Filed 01/06/19 Page 2 of 2
Roy Anthony BORGES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 3D18-2252 & 3D18-1031

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

BARBARA ANN JOHNSON, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-2731

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed October 11, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; J. Kevin Abdoney, Judge.

Ronald N. Toward, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Michael Schaub, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, C.J., and VILLANTI and SLEET, JJ., Concur.