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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JOHN A. GRIFFITHS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SIEMENS AUTOMOTIVE, L.P.; SIEMENS

PERSONAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE PLAN, No. 95-2563

Defendants-Appellees,

and

BRENDA LIVELY,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News.

Robert G. Doumar, District Judge.

(CA-92-28-4)

Submitted: January 11, 1996

Decided: January 31, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John A. Griffiths, Appellant Pro Se. James Patrick McElligott, Jr.,

David Frederick Dabbs, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE &

BOOTHE, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John A. Griffiths appeals from a district court judgment for Defendants. We affirm.

Griffiths was burdened on remand with showing that he suffered

an accident covered by his employer's insurance plan. See Griffiths

v. Siemens Automotive, L.P., No. 92-2118 (4th Cir. Nov. 16, 1994)

(unpublished). His sole evidence during trial was that his treatment

for a duodenal ulcer should not have resulted in organic brain disease

and an abdominal hernia. Because the proof failed to show an accident or malpractice that would constitute an accident during treatment, Fitzgerald v. Manning, 679 F.2d 341, 347 (4th Cir. 1982);

Raines v. Lutz, 341 S.E.2d 194, 197 (Va. 1986), and was insufficient

to support application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, Easterling v.

Walton, 156 S.E.2d 787, 789-91 (Va. 1967); Danville Community

Hosp., Inc. v. Thompson, 43 S.E.2d 882, 886-87 (Va. 1947), the district court correctly found Griffiths failed to support his claim for payment of insurance proceeds. Griffiths's claims of error on appeal are

moot in light of his failure to meet his burden of proof.

Therefore, we affirm the district court judgment. 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

 2
EXHIBIT 1 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 333-2 Filed 12/12/19 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

CHRISTINA GRACE and KEN POTTER, ) 

Individually and on Behalf of All Others, ) 

Similarly Situated, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

) 

v. ) Case No. 5:17-cv-00551-LHK-NC 

) 

APPLE, INC., ) 

) 

 Defendants. ) 

____________________________________) 

Reply Report of Professor Justine S. Hastings, Ph.D. 

REDACTED PURSUANT TO STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 333-2 Filed 12/12/19 Page 2 of 4
30 

I declare that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed on this 13th

day of July at _________ Providence, RI ___________________. 

________________________ 

Justine S. Hastings 

 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 333-2 Filed 12/12/19 Page 3 of 4
32

TABLE 2

ADDITIONAL DATASETS REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF USED PHONE PRICE

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Data source: Best Buy Amazon AT&T EcoATM

Impact -0.136*** -0.193*** -0.106*** -0.091***

(0.002) (0.032) (0.001) (0.002)

Log Time -0.038*** -0.404*** -0.348*** -0.074***

(0.001) (0.068) (0.001) (0.002)

Log Model Age -0.038*** -0.152*** -0.184*** -0.150***

(0.002) (0.019) (0.001) (0.002)

Log US GDP -0.210+ -5.089* -19.431*** -32.830***

(0.118) (2.195) (0.038) (0.097)

Observations 1,941,517 3,169 6,669,780 1,942,822

R-squared 0.785 0.940 0.928 0.937

Implied Diminution in Value -12.72% -17.58% -10.04% -8.74%

Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p<0.10.

For Columns (1) through (3), the outcome is Log Resale Price. The outcome in Column (4) is Log Acquisition Price. Note that Columns (1) and (2) are 

the same regression specifications as found in Table 2 in the Hastings Expert Report. All regression specifications include: monthly controls, Christmas 

season controls, controls for new releases of Apple and Samsung phones. For Best Buy and Amazon, the specification also includes controls for color 

of the phone. For Best Buy, AT&T, and EcoATM, the regression specification also includes fixed effects for the full interaction of phone model, phone 

condition, phone carrier, and phone storage size. For Amazon, the regression specification also includes fixed effects for the full interaction of phone 

model, phone carrier, and phone storage size.

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 333-2 Filed 12/12/19 Page 4 of 4
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-50676

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TIMOTHY ROBERTS,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-95-CA-29-4

_________________________________________________________________

April 20, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Timothy Roberts, federal prisoner # 60934-080, has appealed

the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to

vacate his sentence for a drug-trafficking offense.

The district court agreed with the magistrate judge’s findings

that Roberts’s plea agreement waived his right (1) to contest the

type of methamphetamine involved, and (2) to assert that he was

entitled to additional sentence credit for acceptance of
-2-

responsibility on authority of U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b)(2). We find no

error in these rulings.

The district court held an evidentiary hearing on Roberts’s

claims that his counsel was ineffective (1) for not asserting that

L-methamphetamine rather than D-methamphetamine was involved, and

(2) for not preserving Roberts’s right to take a direct appeal.

However, the court denied Roberts’s application for the appointment

of counsel to represent him at the hearing. This ruling requires

the reversal of the district court’s denial of relief on these

counsel-ineffectiveness claims. See United States v. Vasquez, 7

F.3d 81, 83-86 (5th Cir. 1993) (a harmless error analysis is

inappropriate).

Roberts is not entitled to relief on his claims (1) that the

district court should not have denied his request for discovery;

(2) that the court failed to address some of his objections to the

magistrate judge’s report; and (3) that the district court should

have considered new claims alleged in his objections to the report

as amendments to his § 2255 motion.

The new claims are (1) denial of due process and (2)

ineffective assistance of counsel, based on Roberts’s assumption

that the probation officer did not receive his objections to the

presentence report until the day he was sentenced. These claims

lack merit because the record shows that the probation officer

received the objections nine days before Roberts was sentenced.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED and REMANDED in part.
-3-
Keith WAGNER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0032

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD COTRELLE TIDWELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CARRINGTON REAL ESTATE

SERVICES, LLC, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00437 WHA

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff Edward Tidwell has voluntarily dismissed defendant Naiman Law Group, PC

(Dkt. No. 54). Accordingly, Naiman’s pending motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 48) is DENIED AS

MOOT. After its dismissal, however, Naiman filed a brief styled as a reply in support of its

motion to dismiss, urging the Court to use its “discretion” under FRCP 41(a)(1)(B) to deem

Naiman’s dismissal as “an adjudication on the merits” (Dkt. No. 59 at 2–4).

Contrary to Naiman, FRCP 41(a)(1)(B) affords the district court no such discretion. 

That rule provides that a voluntary dismissal without court order is without prejudice except

that, “if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or

including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.” As

our court of appeals explained in Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193

F.3d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir. 1999):
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

2

We now make explicit what our cases have indicated before, that

once a notice of voluntary dismissal is filed, the district court in

which the action is pending loses jurisdiction and cannot exercise

discretion with respect to the terms and conditions of the dismissal. 

Nor may it rule at the defendant’s request on whether the

plaintiff’s notice of dismissal in a second action is with prejudice

or without prejudice. . . . By the same token, it does not matter

what label the plaintiff attaches to a second voluntary dismissal. 

Rather, Rule 41 itself prescribes the effect of Rule 41(a)(1)

dismissals. Accordingly, whether the second voluntary dismissal

is subject to the two dismissal rule such that it operates with

prejudice as an adjudication upon the merits is an issue that

becomes ripe (and can be determined) only in a third action, if and

when one is filed.

Naiman’s brief does not cite Commercial Space but instead relies on a non-binding decision

from the Fifth Circuit that is inapposite in any event because it examined the district court’s

discretion to place conditions on a voluntary dismissal with court order pursuant to FRCP

41(a)(2), not on a voluntary dismissal without court order pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1). See In re

FEMA Trailer Formaldahyde Prods. Liab. Litig., 628 F.3d 157, 162–63 (5th Cir. 2010). In

short, Naiman’s request has no basis in the law and is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jamal Ali BILAL, f/k/a John Burton, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-92

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 9, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER FOR SAMSUNG TO FILE PUBLIC UNREDACTED VERSIONS OF CERTAIN EXHIBITS

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 FOR SAMSUNG TO FILE 

PUBLIC UNREDACTED VERSIONS 

OF CERTAIN EXHIBITS

Re: Dkt. No. 1144

On January 6, 2019, the Court denied without prejudice Samsung’s request to seal the 

following exhibits: QX9214, QX9224, QX9271, Q2017MDL1_01106145-51, and 

Q2017MDL1_00039813-14. ECF No. 1144. The Court instructed Samsung that if Samsung 

wished to seal those documents or portions thereof, Samsung “must file a more narrowly tailored 

sealing request that meets the compelling reasons standard for sealing” by Monday, January 7, 

2019, at noon. Id. at 3. Samsung has not filed such a renewed sealing motion with respect to 

those documents. Therefore, Samsung must file public unredacted versions of those exhibits by 

January 9, 2019, at 5:00 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1191 Filed 01/08/19 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER FOR SAMSUNG TO FILE PUBLIC UNREDACTED VERSIONS OF CERTAIN EXHIBITS

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

Dated: January 8, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1191 Filed 01/08/19 Page 2 of 2
Erik KELLY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2513

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 13, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION & ORDER October 2012

























































UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

 Plaintiff(s), 

 v. 

 

 Defendant(s). 





















&DVH1RBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

APPLICATION FOR 

ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY 

PRO HAC VICE

(CIVIL LOCAL RULE 11-3)

I, , an active member in good standing of the bar of 

 , hereby respectfully apply for admission to practice pro hac vice in the 

Northern District of California representing: in the 

above-entitled action. My local co-counsel in this case is __________________________________, an 

attorney who is a member of the bar of this Court in good standing and who maintains an office 

within the State of California. 

MY ADDRESS OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S ADDRESS OF RECORD: 

MY TELEPHONE # OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S TELEPHONE # OF RECORD: 

 

MY EMAIL ADDRESS OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S EMAIL ADDRESS OF RECORD: 

 

I am an active member in good standing of a United States Court or of the highest court of 

another State or the District of Columbia, as indicated above; my bar number is: . 

A true and correct copy of a certificate of good standing or equivalent official document from said 

bar is attached to this application. 

I agree to familiarize myself with, and abide by, the Local Rules of this Court, especially the 

Standards of Professional Conduct for attorneys and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Local Rules. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Dated: 

 APPLICANT 

 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

 FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application of is granted, 

subject to the terms and conditions of Civil L.R. 11-3. All papers filed by the attorney must indicate 

appearance pro hac vice. Service of papers upon, and communication with, local co-counsel 

designated in the application will constitute notice to the party. 

Dated: 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

MAQUET CARDIOVASCULAR LLC 3:16-cv-07213

SAPHENA MEDICAL, INC., et al.

Michael H. Bunis

Michael H. Bunis

Michael H. Bunis

District of Massachusetts

Saphena Medical, Inc. and Albert Chin

Karen I. Boyd

Choate Hall & Stewart LLP, Two International 

Place, 34th Floor, Boston, MA 02110

Turner Boyd LLP, 702 Marshall Street, 

Suite 640, Redwood City, CA 94063

(617) 248-4030 (650) 521-5930

mbunis@choate.com boyd@turnerboyd.com

566839

01/19/17

January 19, 2017.

Case 3:16-cv-07213-WHA Document 38 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 1
SHOE ENVY FASHION, INC., and Nadia Rivera, Appellants, v. SILVERI LEASING, INC., Appellee.

No. 4D18-2080

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[July 3, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN RE: Victor Roy LORASO, III

NO. 2019-B-0688

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 17, 2019

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM

Respondent was convicted of possession and distribution of child pornography. Prior to the filing of formal charges, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. The parties stipulate to respondent's misconduct, and seek his permanent disbarment from the practice of law.

Based on our review of the petition, we agree that permanent disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this matter. Accordingly, having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted. The name of Victor Roy Loraso, III, Louisiana Bar Roll number 31239, shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys and his license to practice law in the State of Louisiana shall be revoked. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(A), it is further ordered that respondent be permanently prohibited from being readmitted to the practice of law in this state.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court's judgment until paid.
1

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK

ORDER RE: CASE SCHEDULE

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

IN RE: YAHOO! INC. CUSTOMER DATA 

SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK 

ORDER RE: CASE SCHEDULE

Re: Dkt. No. 322

On September 14, 2018, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement indicating that the parties 

have reached an agreement in principle and will present a definitive agreement to the Court within 

45 days. ECF No. 322. The parties request that, in the meantime, the Court stay this litigation in 

its entirety. The parties’ request is DENIED. The case schedule remains as set.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2018

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 323 Filed 09/17/18 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of MediaBay Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I, John Levy, as Vice
Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (3)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



                                             /s/ John Levy
                                             -----------------------
                                                 John Levy
                                                 Vice Chairman and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer


Dated: March 31, 2005
EXHIBIT 18

REDACTED VERSION OF

DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 25-18 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2


                          CERTIFICATION 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 AAA Energy, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

   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 results of
      operations of the Company.

Date: March 16, 2007


/s/ Albert Au
------------------------------------
Albert Au
Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 64

- Filed Under Seal -

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-65 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 1
| Name                                       |   | Jurisdiction      of Incorporation    |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                                       |   |                                  |
| China      Digital TV Technology Co., Ltd. |   | British      Virgin Islands           |
|                                       |   |                                  |
| Beijing      Super TV Co., Ltd.            |   | People’s      Republic of China |
|                                       |   |                                  |
| Golden      Benefit Technology Limited     |   | Hong      Kong                        |
|                                       |   |                                  |
| China      Super Media Holdings Limited    |   | Hong      Kong                        |

----