alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 FTC’S JAN. 8, 2019 LIST OF WITNESSES

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 

Joseph R. Baker, D.C. Bar No. 490802 

Elizabeth A. Gillen, Cal. Bar No. 260667 

Daniel Matheson, D.C. Bar No. 502490 

Mark J. 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, 

v. 

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a 

Delaware corporation, 

Defendant. 

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

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE 

COMMISSION’S UPDATED LIST OF 

WITNESSES FOR TRIAL DAY 3, 

JANUARY 8, 2019 

Courtroom: 7, 4th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh 

Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission submits the following updated list of witnesses it 

intends to call live and by videotaped deposition on January 8, 2019 (Trial Day 3): 

1. John Grubbs, BlackBerry (by videotaped deposition) (sealed) (cont’d) 

2. Scott McGregor, former Broadcom (by videotaped deposition) (sealed) 

3. Andrew Hong, Samsung (by videotaped deposition) 

4. William Wyatt, Qualcomm (live) 

5. Mark Davis, former VIA Telecom (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting) 

6. Cristiano Amon, Qualcomm (live) 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1180 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 2
 2 FTC’S JAN. 8, 2019 LIST OF WITNESSES

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

7. Aichatou (Aicha) Evans, Intel (live) 

8. Todd Madderom, Motorola (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting) 

9. Brian Chong, Wistron (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting) 

10. Monica Yang, Pegatron (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting) 

11. Hwi-Jae Cho, LG Electronics (by written deposition) (time permitting) 

12. Isabel Mahe, Apple (by videotaped deposition) (time permitting) 

Dated: January 7, 2019 

Respectfully submitted, 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

 /s/ Jennifer Milici 

Jennifer Milici 

J. Alexander Ansaldo 

Joseph R. Baker 

Elizabeth A. Gillen 

Daniel Matheson 

Mark J. Woodward 

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 1180 Filed 01/07/19 Page 2 of 2
Timothy TURNER, DOC #144684, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3819

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 3, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

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

SEAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART BROADCOM'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 1297

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

as follows: 

Document Portions of Pages Ruling

McGregor Deposition 15:24-16:2 DENIED. 

McGregor Deposition 240:14-24 GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1303 Filed 01/14/19 Page 1 of 1
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00617-CR

Kim Kaylean Williams, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 47,893, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Kim Kaylean Williams was placed on deferred adjudication community

supervision after pleading guilty to tampering with a governmental record. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann.

§ 37.10 (West Supp. 2002). The district court subsequently revoked supervision, adjudicated

appellant guilty, and sentenced her to incarceration for twenty-one months in a state jail.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v.

State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.

1969). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of her right

to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
2

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: March 14, 2002

Do Not Publish
# L_2018029EN.01003601.xml

| 1.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 29/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 29/36

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2018/158

of 29 January 2018

appointing a member, proposed by the Republic of Finland, 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 Finnish 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 Antti LIIKKANEN, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Antti LIIKKANEN,

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:

| — | Mr Mikkel NÄKKÄLÄJÄRVI, opiskelija, Rovaniemen kaupunginvaltuuston jäsen. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Mikkel NÄKKÄLÄJÄRVI, opiskelija, Rovaniemen kaupunginvaltuuston jäsen.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 29 January 2018.

For the Council

The President

R. PORODZANOV

---

(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

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1583

DIANE S. ROSENBERG, Substitute Trustee; MARK D. MEYER, Substitute 

Trustee; JOHN A. ANSELL, III, Substitute Trustee; STEPHANIE 

MONTGOMERY, Substitute Trustee; KENNETH SAVITZ, Substitute Trustee,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

KEVIN CHRISTOPHER BETSKOFF,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

LUCREZIA IONA CANADY,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00672-GLR)

Submitted: October 23, 2018 Decided: October 25, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Kevin C. Betskoff, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Kevin C. Betskoff appeals from the district court’s order remanding the underlying 

foreclosure proceeding back to state court. We dismiss the appeal. Remand orders are 

generally “not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012). The 

Supreme Court has explained that the appellate restrictions of “§ 1447(d) must be read in 

pari materia with § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) 

[i.e., lack of subject matter jurisdiction and defects in removal procedures] are immune 

from review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 

(1995). 

Whether a remand order is reviewable is not based on a district court’s explicit 

citation to § 1447(c); “[t]he bar of § 1447(d) applies to any order invoking substantively 

one of the grounds specified in § 1447(c).” Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d 819, 

824-25 (4th Cir. 2000). Here, the district court clearly remanded this case based on lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of 

the district court’s order. Thus, we deny leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis 

and we dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from National
Property Investors 6 1999 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000708870
<NAME> NATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTORS 6
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,751
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          69,329
<DEPRECIATION>                                  46,271
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,818
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         26,135
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,334)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,818
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,507
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,711
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,544
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       796
<EPS-BASIC>                                       7.19<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>


</TABLE>
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS RE: INFRINGEMENT—No. C-05-01668 RMW; 05-01766 RMW

JAS

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 10/21/08

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

COMPUTER CACHE COHERENCY

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

VIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and VIA

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (USA),

Defendants.

No. C-05-01668 RMW

COMPUTER CACHE COHERENCY

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTEL CORPORATION,

Defendant.

No. C-05-01766 RMW

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ON

CROSS-MOTIONS RE: INFRINGEMENT

Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 290 Filed 10/21/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS RE: INFRINGEMENT—No. C-05-01668 RMW; 05-01766 RMW

JAS 2

ORDER

Good cause appearing therefor, the court orders that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of Order on CrossMotions Re: Infringement Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9 is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration shall constitute its motion for

reconsideration;

3. Defendants shall file their opposition(s) to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration no later than

October 27, 2008;

4. Plaintiff shall file its reply brief in support of its motion for reconsideration no later than

November 3, 2008.

5. The court will consider the motion based on the parties filings. No hearing will be

scheduled.

DATED: 10/20/08

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 290 Filed 10/21/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS RE: INFRINGEMENT—No. C-05-01668 RMW; 05-01766 RMW

JAS 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Roderick G. Dorman dormanr@hbdlawyers.com

Lawrence M. Hadley hadleyl@hbdlawyers.com

Omer Salik saliko@hbdlawyers.com

Counsel for Defendants:

James P. Bennett jbennett@mofo.com

Juanita R. Brooks brooks@fr.com

Joseph V Colaianni , Jr Colaianni@fr.com

Paul Forrest Coyne pcoyne@mofo.com

John Michael Farrell jfarrell@fr.com

Karl J. Kramer kkramer@mofo.com

Jennifer A. Ochs jochs@wsgr.com

Timothy Wayne Riffe Riffe@fr.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 10/21/08 /s/ JAS

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 290 Filed 10/21/08 Page 3 of 3
STATE of Louisiana v. Benjamin GUILLORY

NO. 2019-KO-0606

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2019

Denied.
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 16, 2011                                             |   |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                           |   |   |   |   |
| /s/ Molly Henderson                                            |   |   |   |   |
| Molly Henderson                                                |   |   |   |   |
| Chief Business and Financial Officer and Senior Vice President |   |   |   |   |

----
Allen Dwayne TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3464

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

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

The undersigned, Charles El-Moussa, President, Secretary and Treasurer of
Netfone, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Netfone, Inc. 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; and

     (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of Netfone, Inc.

Date: May 21, 2010


/s/ Charles El-Moussa
--------------------------------------------
Charles El-Moussa
President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial
Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          26,903
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,114
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,129
<INVENTORY>                                      1,252
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,700
<PP&E>                                          17,218
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,686
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  52,036
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,837
<BONDS>                                         25,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     27,376
<COMMON>                                            43
<OTHER-SE>                                    (23,309)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    52,036
<SALES>                                         20,626
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,626
<CGS>                                            4,709
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,815
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (497)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 267
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    332
<INCOME-TAX>                                        16
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                316
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       316
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 27, 2020

No. 04-19-00889-CR

Cameron Antoine ROBY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR6809

Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On July 31, 2020, we abated this appeal to the trial court to hold a hearing to determine 

whether appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, whether appellant is indigent, and whether 

appellant’s court-appointed counsel had abandoned the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). 

We received a supplemental clerk’s record on August 26, 2020, containing the trial court’s 

findings that appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, that appellant is indigent, and that 

appellant’s court-appointed attorney established a reasonable basis for not filing appellant’s brief 

as previously ordered. The trial court did not impose sanctions, and it appointed new appellate 

counsel, Debra Parker, to represent appellant in this appeal.

It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal is REINSTATED on the docket of this court 

and that appellant’s brief is due on or before September 28, 2020.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of August, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
#### Glenda Gail PARKER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 03-2483.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 30, 2004.

Decided May 14, 2004.

Glenda Gail Parker, Appellant pro se. Steven E. Gordon, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, 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:

Glenda Gail Parker appeals the district court’s order dismissing for want of jurisdiction Parker’s action challenging her removal from employment and raising other claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Parker v. Department of Def.,*No. CA-03-431-A (E.D.Va. Oct. 27, 2003). 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*