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

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

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 

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Jennifer Milici, Daniel Matheson, Elizabeth Gillen

Defendant’s Attorneys: Gary Bornstein, Justina Sessions

A further case management conference was held on April 6, 2018. A further case 

management conference is set for April 24, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall file their joint 

case management statement by April 23, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.

The Court granted the parties’ request to extend the deadline to file motions to compel fact 

discovery to May 18, 2018. ECF No. 672 at 8–9.

The Court ordered Qualcomm to complete its privilege re-review of documents for Mr. 

Aberle by May 2, 2018.

As discussed at the case management conference, the Court approved the parties’

deposition schedule:

Liren Chen – April 16, 2018

Alex Katouzian – April 17 and 18, 2018

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 678 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

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

Paul Jacobs – April 17 and 18, 2018

Ericsson employees Martin Zander and Christina Petersson – April 19 and 20, 2018

Derek Aberle – April 20, 2018

Jeffrey Altman – Week of May 21, 2018

The parties shall depose Edward Tiedemann by April 20, 2018.

The Court amended the case schedule as follows:

Scheduled Event Date

Further Case Management Conference April 24, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.

Deadline to File Motions to Compel Fact Discovery May 18, 2018

Plaintiff’s Opening Expert Reports May 24, 2018

Defendant’s Expert Reports June 28, 2018

Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Expert Reports July 26, 2018

Close of Expert Discovery August 16, 2018

Last Day to File Dispositive Motions and Daubert 

Motions

(one dispositive motion per side, two Daubert motions 

per side)

August 30, 2018

Summary Judgment and Daubert Oppositions September 24, 2018

Summary Judgment and Daubert Replies October 4, 2018

Hearing on Dispositive Motions October 18, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. 

Final Pretrial Conference December 13, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. 

Bench Trial January 4, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. 

Length of Trial 10 days 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2018

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 678 Filed 04/06/18 Page 2 of 2
Michael ADAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4041

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          25,082
<SECURITIES>                                    59,938
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                       165
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,406
<PP&E>                                         212,554
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,997
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 307,969
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,981
<BONDS>                                        141,620
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          7
<COMMON>                                           252
<OTHER-SE>                                     113,113
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   307,969
<SALES>                                         11,663
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,663
<CGS>                                           15,215
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,215
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,124
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,845)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,831)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,312)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,519)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,519)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.51)
        

</TABLE>
Jermaine Leon YOUNG v. STATE

CR-16-1272

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR’S 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, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY 

MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 948

On November 21, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part motions to file under 

seal filed in connection with the parties’ briefing on Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission’s 

(“FTC”) motion for partial summary judgment. ECF No. 935. In that Order, the Court denied the 

parties’ request to seal information designated as confidential by non-party Marvell 

Semiconductor (“Marvell”) because Marvell had failed to file a supporting declaration providing 

that the information was sealable, as is required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). Id. at 5, 9–10. 

Before the Court is Marvell’s unopposed administrative motion to file under seal two 

references to “Marvell” in Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated’s (“Qualcomm”) opposition to the 

FTC’s motion for partial summary judgment and one exhibit to Qualcomm’s opposition. ECF No. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 960 Filed 12/04/18 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR’S 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

948. Having considered Marvell’s brief and the Ninth Circuit’s sealing case law, the Court 

GRANTS Marvell’s motion to seal (1) the references to “Marvell” in Qualcomm’s opposition to 

the FTC’s motion for partial summary judgment; (2) and Exhibit 19 to Qualcomm’s request for 

judicial notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2018

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 960 Filed 12/04/18 Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 20 (Friday, January 31, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8717-8718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02044]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Integrated Photonics Institute for 
Manufacturing Innovation Operating Under the Name of the American 
Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 14, 2024, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), The Integrated Photonics 
Institute for Manufacturing Innovation operating under the name of the 
American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics (``AIM 
Photonics'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Critical Frequency Design, LLC,

[[Page 8718]]

Melbourne, FL; FlexCompute Inc., Watertown, MA; MPI America Inc., San 
Jose, CA; Phlotonics, Inc., Rochester, NY; PICadvanced US LLC, Fort 
Lauderdale, FL; and Research Foundation on behalf of the University at 
Albany, Albany, NY, have been added as parties to this venture.
    Also, AAYUNA Inc., Allentown, PA; Trustees of Boston University, 
Boston, MA; Ebara Technologies, Inc., Sacramento, CA; George Washington 
University, Washington, DC; Presco Engineering, Woodbridge, CT; 
Teledyne Princeton Instruments, Trenton, NJ; and Milkshake Technology 
Inc., Menlo Park, CA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and AIM Photonics intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On June 16, 2016, AIM Photonics filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on July 25, 2016 (81 FR 48450).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 1, 
2024. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on September 26, 2024 (89 FR 78903).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2025-02044 Filed 1-30-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
f8k011908ex10xiii_mmg.htm


     

     

     

    
      Exhibit
10.13


      


      


      CONVERSION
AGREEMENT

      


      This
Conversion Agreement
(the “Agreement”), dated as
of January 19, 2009, is made and entered into by and between Mega Media Group,
Inc. (the “Company”), and Andrey
Anikeyev  (the “Holder”).

      


      RECITALS

      


      WHEREAS, the Holder holds a
10% promissory note with an outstanding principal amount of $100,000.00 and
interest amount of $8,950.69 (the “Note”), dated January
22, 2008, for a total of $108,950.69 which has been assumed by the Company;
and

      


      WHEREAS, the Holder has agreed
to convert the Note, including accrued interest thereon, into shares of the
Company’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share (the “Common Stock”), on
the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein.

      


      NOW, THEREFORE, intending to
be legally bound, the parties hereby agree as follows:

      


      
        	
                1.  

              	
                Conversion. The Holder
      shall convert the outstanding principal due under the Note, together with
      any interest accrued thereon through the date of conversion, into shares
      of the Company's Common Stock, at the rate of $0.01 per share (the “Conversion”)
      for a total of 10,895,069 shares. The Conversion shall be considered
      payment in full by the Company of the Note and the conversion method in
      the Note shall be waived. The Holder shall deliver the Note to the Company
      for cancellation.

              


      

      


      
        	
                2.  

              	
                Binding Effect. This
      instrument is being executed by the Holder and shall be binding upon its
      successors and assigns for the uses and purposes above set forth and
      referred to, and shall be effective as of the date
  hereof.

              


      

      


      
        	
                3.  

              	
                Governing Law. This
      instrument shall be governed by and enforced in accordance with the laws
      of the State of New York without any application of the principles of
      conflicts of laws.

              


      

      


      


      
        
          
          

        

        
          -1-

          
            

          

        

        
          
          

        

      

      
 

       

      


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this
Agreement has been duly executed by the Company and Holder as of the date first
above written.

      


       

      MEGA
MEDIA GROUP, INC.

       

      /s/
Alex
Shvarts                                     


      Alex
Shvarts, CEO

      


      THE
HOLDER

       

      /s/ Andrey
Anikeyev                              


      Andrey
Anikeyev

       

       

      -2-
Bryant BANK v. M.E.C. INVESTMENTS, LLC

1160502

Supreme Court of Alabama.

December 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 9.1

                                  Quinenco S.A.
                        List of Significant Subsidiaries

The following list contains the name, jurisdiction of incorporation and the
names under these subsidiaries do business of Quinenco's significant
subsidiaries as defined under rule 1-02(w) of Regulation S-X. Names of multiple
wholly-owned subsidiaries have been omitted.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                               Jurisdiction of       Name Under Which                                 Number of Omitted
Name                            Incorporation       Subsidiary Operates        Line of Business        Subsidiaries(1)
----                            -------------       -------------------        ----------------        ---------------
<S>                                 <C>         <C>                            <C>                           <C>
                                                                               Investments in
LQ Inversiones Financieras                                                     Financial Services
S.A.                                Chile       LQIF                           Sector                        12
Inversiones Rio Grande S.A.                     Inversiones Rio Grande S.A.
                                    Chile                                      Investments                   18
VTR S.A.                            Chile       VTR S.A.                       Investments                    2
                                                                               Industrial
Madeco S.A.                         Chile       Madeco                         Manufacturer                  27
</TABLE>

(1)   The jurisdiction of incorporation of all of the omitted subsidiaries is
      outside of the United States.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

PATRICK HAIR

, Appellant,

v.

REEMPLOYMEN T ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION

, and

BROWARD COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS,

Appellee s

.

No. 4D 17

- 3661

[ June 7, 2018 ]

Appeal from the State of Florida, Reemployment Assistance Appeals

Commission ; L.T. Case No. 17

- 02441

.

Patrick Hair, S unrise, pro se.

Katie E. Sabo, Tallahassee, for Reemployment Assistance App eals

Commission.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, T AYLOR

, and L EVINE

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 23.2 TO FORM 10-K

                Consent of Daniel G. Matthews & Associates, Inc.



                     DANIEL G. MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                            210 EAST WELLONS STREET
                        SMITHFIELD, NORTH CAROLINA 27577
                                  919-934-7116

March 27, 1998

Four Oaks Bank & Trust Company
P.O. Box 309
Four Oaks, NC 27524


     RE: Consent of Daniel G. Matthews & Associates, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3, File No. 333-33527) pertaining to the Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. Dividend
Reinvestment Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8, File No.
333-30677) pertaining to the Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase
and Bonus Plan and Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, of our report dated
February 20, 1996, with respect to the consolidated financial statement of Four
Oaks Bank & Trust Company (predecessor to Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc.) incorporated
by reference in the Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 1997 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


/s/ Daniel G. Matthews & Associates, Inc.

DANIEL G. MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Smithfield, North Carolina
EX PARTE Jerry James BIAS

CR-17-0090

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
Michael TIMBERLAKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2077

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 29, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Carrie McMullen, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Makar, Osterhaus, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.
EX PARTE Nicholas MCCARY

CR-17-0150

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Demario M. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-4004

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 1, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Christopher J. RAHAIM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-5096

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 3, 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LACY ROSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

TD BANK USA, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00419-MMC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Lacy Rose and defendant TD Bank USA having advised the Court that the 

parties have “reached a settlement in principal of the above captioned case and are in 

the process of documenting said settlement” (see Notice of Settlement, filed September 

21, 2017),

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s claims alleged against said defendant be 

dismissed without prejudice; provided, however, that if any party hereto shall certify to 

this Court, within ninety days, that the agreed consideration for said settlement has not 

been delivered over, the foregoing Order shall stand vacated and this cause shall 

forthwith be restored to the calendar for further proceedings as appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2017

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

 

1

In light thereof, defendant’s pending motion to dismiss is deemed withdrawn.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Prince Orwell UWAEZUOKE, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02 — 4385.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 30, 2004.

Decided May 17, 2004.

John D. Ash, Towson, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Stephen M. Schenning, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Prince Orwell Uwaezuoke pleaded guilty to bank fraud. In his plea agreement, Uwaezuoke waived his right to appeal any sentence within the guideline range and below the statutory maximum. His twenty-seven month sentence satisfied both these requirements. Uwaezuoke’s counsel has filed an appeal under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 *896L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that the sentencing court erred in denying his motion for a downward departure. Uwaezuoke was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.

We review the validity of a defendant’s waiver of appellate rights de novo. *United States v. Marin,*961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir.1992). We conclude that Uwaezuoke’s waiver is valid, and his appeal is therefore meritless. *See United States v. Wiggins,*905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir.1990). Accordingly, we affirm Uwaezuoke’s convictions and sentence.

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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*
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 402 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 402

     Providing for a correction in the engrossment of S. Res. 357.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 30, 2021

Mr. Hawley submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Providing for a correction in the engrossment of S. Res. 357.

    Resolved, That in the engrossment of the resolution S. Res. 357, 
the Secretary of the Senate shall make the following correction:
            (1) In the sixth whereas clause of the preamble, strike 
        ``and youngest''.
                                 <all>
```
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2942

_____________________________

DEMETRI BLOUNT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County.

Michael S. Sharrit, Judge.

July 17, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee; Demetri Blount, pro se, for 

Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.