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

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PASCAL BOKAR THIAM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FILLMORE PROPERTIES, L.L.C., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-01874 JSW

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

This matter is set for a hearing on January 5, 2007 on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ opposition to this motion shall be due by

Monday, November 13, 2006 and Defendants’ reply, if any, shall be due by Monday, November

20, 2006.

If the Court determines that the matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument, it

will so advise the parties in advance of the hearing date. If the parties wish to modify this

schedule, they may submit for the Court’s consideration a stipulation and proposed order

demonstrating good cause for any modification requested.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Opinion issued August 2, 2012.

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

NO. 01B12B00330BCV

SHANTELE ENGLISH, Appellant

V.

TIDEWATER FINANCE COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1005013

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Shantele English, has neither paid the required filing fee for this 

appeal nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP.
2

P. 5 (“A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must 

pay—at the time an item is presented for filing—whatever fees are required by 

statute or Supreme Court order.”), 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing 

indigence); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.207 (Vernon Supp. 2011), § 

51.941(a) (Vernon 2005), § 101.041 (Vernon Supp. 2011) (listing fees in court of 

appeals); Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and 

the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 

Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in TEX. R. APP. P. app. A 

§ B(1) (listing fees in court of appeals). Appellant was notified on April 9, 2012 that 

this appeal was subject to dismissal if she did not pay the fee by April 19, 2012. 

After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not 

adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (allowing enforcement of rule); 42.3(c) 

(allowing involuntary dismissal of case). Appellant was again notified on June 11, 

2012 that this appeal was subject to dismissal if she did not pay the fee by June 21, 

2012. After being notified again that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant 

did not adequately respond. See id. 

Appellant has also neither established indigence, nor paid, or made 

arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk=s record. See TEX. R. APP. P.

20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence), 37.3(b) (allowing dismissal of 
3

appeal for want of prosecution if no clerk’s record filed due to appellant’s fault). 

After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not 

adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal

for want of prosecution).

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss all pending 

motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.
Levar Jermaine Taborn TYSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D19-185

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1426

SUSAN HESTER-CARRILLO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HONORABLE ANN KORBEL-ALBRIGHT; ANNE HURWITZ, Senior Court 

Evaluator Visitation Supervision Program; LEWIS NORDAN,

Therapist II; ISIAH LEGGETT, Montgomery County Executive; 

CHRIS KUNZ, Attorney,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:15-

cv-00012-PWG)

Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 29, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Susan Hester-Carrillo, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Susan Hester-Carrillo appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint for lack of 

jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. See Hester-Carrillo v. Korbel-Albright, No. 8:15-

cv-00012-PWG (D. Md. Mar. 24, 2015). We deny Hester-Carrillo’s 

motion for transcripts at Government expense. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 1 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 2 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 3 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 4 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 5 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 6 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 7 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 8 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 9 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 10 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 11 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 12 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 13 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 14 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 15 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 16 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 17 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-07242-JSC Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 18 of 18
#### Andre Marcus BRAGG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden GALAZA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 99-16636.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 7, 2000

Filed March 12, 2001

Amended June 12, 2001

Quin Denvir, Federal Defender; Daniel J. Broderick, Chief Assistant Federal Defender; Carolyn M. Wiggin, Staff Attorney; Allison Claire, Assistant Federal Defender, Sacramento, California, for the petitioner-appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California; David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General; Robert R. Anderson, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Arnold O. Overoye, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Mathew Chan, *1151Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for the respondent-appellee.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAYY, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This court’s opinion, filed March 12, 2001, is amended as follows:

> 1. On page 3110 of the slip, the first sentence of the second full paragraph reads:

> Here, while Bragg appealed his conviction in the state court alleging that facts on the record established ineffective assistance of counsel, he never moved for an evidentiary hearing to resolve any factual ambiguities.

The foregoing sentence should be replaced with the following sentence:

> Here, while Bragg appealed his conviction in the state court alleging that facts on the record established ineffective assistance of counsel, he never moved for an evidentiary hearing in the trial court to resolve any factual ambiguities.

2. On page 3111 of the slip, the last sentence before the Conclusion reads:

> Despite concerns about gaps in the record, we hold that AEDPA in this case precludes us from remanding for an evi-dentiary hearing.

The foregoing sentence should be replaced with the following sentences:

> Diligence would require at least one step or the other to develop the factual basis of his claim. Bragg made no such efforts. Despite concerns about gaps in the record, we hold that AEDPA in this case precludes us from remanding for an evidentiary hearing.

> With these amendments, the petition for rehearing dated March 21, 2001, is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.
EXHIBIT J 

Case 3:17-cv-00600-LB Document 120-10 Filed 09/06/19 Page 1 of 3
ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP 

180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200 

San Francisco, California 94104 

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 3:17-CV-00600-LB 

PROPOSED VOIR DIRE BY DEFENDANT 

335462.1 

DALE L. ALLEN, JR., State Bar No. 145279 

dallen@aghwlaw.com 

PHILIP J. DOWNS, JR., State Bar No. 302939 

pdowns@aghwlaw.com 

ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP 

180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 697-2000 

Facsimile: (415) 813-2045 

Attorneys for Defendants 

COUNTY OF NAPA, COUNTY OF NAPA SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT, DEPUTY TIMOTHY REID 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RENEE LEPAGE, an individual, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

COUNTY OF NAPA; COUNTY OF 

NAPA SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; 

AND DEPUTY TIMOTHY REID, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00600-LB 

Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler 

PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS BY 

DEFENDANTS

Trial: October 15, 2019 

1. Have you, a relative or a close friend been arrested by the police? If so, did you 

believe the police acted inappropriately? If so in what way? 

2. Have you ever made a complaint against the police for actions you observed? Please 

explain? 

3. Have you or anyone you know filed a lawsuit against a police officer? 

4. Have you been the subject of, or observed or learned of a relative or close friend, who 

has been the subject of verbal abuse by the police? Please explain? 

5. Have you, a relative or a close friend been the subject of use of force by the police? 

Please explain. 

6. Have you observed the use of force by the police on someone else? Please explain. 

Case 3:17-cv-00600-LB Document 120-10 Filed 09/06/19 Page 2 of 3
ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP 

180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200 

San Francisco, California 94104 

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 3:17-CV-00600-LB 

PROPOSED VOIR DIRE BY DEFENDANT 

335462.1 

7. Does anyone believe the police have too much latitude to use force? If so, please 

explain. 

8. Does anyone believe police officers lie to justify the use of force? If so, please explain. 

Dated: September 5, 2019 ALLEN, GLAESSNER, 

HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP 

By:___Dale L. Allen, Jr._______________ 

DALE L. ALLEN, JR. 

PHILIP J. DOWNS, JR. 

Attorneys for Defendants 

COUNTY OF NAPA, COUNTY OF NAPA 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, DEPUTY 

TIMOTHY REID 

Case 3:17-cv-00600-LB Document 120-10 Filed 09/06/19 Page 3 of 3
Yuliya ISHTYKOVA, Appellant, v. 1906 COLLINS LLC, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D18-431

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                         438,083
<SECURITIES>                                   312,657
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,392,873
<ALLOWANCES>                                   154,086
<INVENTORY>                                    394,919
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,968,890
<PP&E>                                       1,549,677
<DEPRECIATION>                                 848,739
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,866,620
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,481,451
<BONDS>                                         40,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,304,094
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,866,620
<SALES>                                      2,081,588
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,081,588
<CGS>                                        1,033,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,825,743
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,160
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,132
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                262,266
<INCOME-TAX>                                    83,925
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            178,341
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   178,341
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**     The undersigned executive officer of TD Banknorth Inc. (the “Registrant”) hereby certifiesthat the Registrant’s Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.         /s/ Stephen J. Boyle       Name: Stephen J. Boyle  Title:  Chief Financial OfficerDate:August 9, 2005Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 has been provided to TD Banknorth Inc. and will be retained by TD Banknorth Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
61
Exhibit 99.2 (c)
Deloitte &
  Touche LLP
                    Suite 1200               Telephone (714) 436-7100
                    695 Town Center Drive       Facsimile: (714) 436-7200
                    Costa Mesa, California  92626-1924


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


The Board of Directors
Long Beach Mortgage Company
Orange, California

We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of
financial condition of Long Beach Mortgage Company and
subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholder's
equity and cash flows for the years then ended. These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally auditing
standards and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require
that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance
about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting
principles used and significant estimates made by management, as
well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our
opinion.

In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Long
Beach Mortgage Company and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996
and 1995, and the results of their operations and their cash
flows for the years then ended in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles.

As described in Note 2, effective January 1, 1995, the Company
adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 122,
Accounting for Mortgage Servicing Rights.

Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on
the basic 1996 consolidated financial statements taken as a
whole. The Supplemental Schedule of HUD adjusted net worth is
presented for the purpose of additional analysis and is not a
required part of the basic 1996 consolidated financial
statements.  This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Such schedule has been subjected to the auditing
procedures applied in our audit of the basic 1996 consolidated
financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all
material respects when considered in relation to the basic 1996
consolidated financial statements taken as a whole.

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also
issued a report dated May 15, 1997, on our consideration of Long
Beach Mortgage Company's internal control structure and a report
dated May 15, 1997, on its compliance with laws and regulations.


\s\ Deloitte & Touche LLP
May 15, 1997
Stephen Allen EATON Jr, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4489

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

August 1, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Archie F. Gardner, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Tabitha Herrera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED. *See**Pantoja v. State* , 990 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), *aff'd* , 59 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 2011).

Makar, Winokur, and M.K.Thomas, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCES TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,539                   8,411
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,571                  12,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,192                   9,222
<INVENTORY>                                        199                     968
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,458                  14,391
<PP&E>                                          12,177                  13,443
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,359                   9,803
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,861                  19,525
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,439                  12,436
<BONDS>                                         25,022                  25,022
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                   4,371
<COMMON>                                            90                      67
<OTHER-SE>                                    (29,690)                (22,371)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,861                  19,525
<SALES>                                          5,769                  20,626
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,769                  20,626
<CGS>                                            2,859                   4,709
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,859                   4,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,356                  15,815
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   342                   (191)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 735                     267
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,403)                     332
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                      16
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,403)                     316
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,403)                     316
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)                    0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)                    0.00
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOTICE OF ELIGIBILITY FOR VIDEO RECORDING

This case is assigned to a judge who participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot 

Project. See General Order 65 and cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. The parties’ consent is required 

before any proceedings in this case may be recorded. If a party, the presiding judge, or a 

member of the media requests that a proceeding be recorded, consent of the parties will be 

presumed unless a party submits an Objection to Request for Video Recording form as directed 

by the Cameras in the Courtroom Procedures. 

Parties objecting to video recording are asked, for research purposes, to communicate to 

the Court the reasons for declining to participate. If you decline to participate, you should 

candidly convey the reasons for your decision. Whether you agree to participate or decline to 

participate will have no effect on your case whatsoever. 

Susan Y. Soong, Clerk of Court

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 6-1 Filed 01/25/17 Page 1 of 1