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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-603

In Re: ESTELLA PRADE; JAMES JACKSON,

Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-94-18-3)

Submitted: February 25, 1997 Decided: March 5, 1997

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Estella Prade, James Jackson, Petitioners Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Estella Prade and James Jackson petition this court for a Writ

of Mandamus directing Judge Robert Maxwell to grant petitioners'

motion to amend their complaint and grant them an expedited trial

in connection with their civil action filed in Judge Maxwell's

court against the law firm of Jackson & Kelly. We note that subsequent to the filing of this petition, the district court issued a

decision granting summary judgment to Jackson & Kelly in Prade v.

Jackson & Kelly, No. CA-94-18-3 (N.D. W. Va. Oct. 16, 1996). That

decision renders moot petitioners' request for the relief specified. Accordingly, we grant petitioners' motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, but their petition for mandamus relief is denied.

PETITION DENIED
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549

 

Form 10-Q

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-11864

 

 

NATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTORS6 

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

  California                                        13-3140364

(Stateor other jurisdictionof                         (I.R.S. Employer

 incorporationororganization)                        Identification No.)

 

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(864) 239-1000

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  

[X]Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
# L_2017295EN.01003801.xml

| 14.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 295/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 295/38

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/2064

of 13 November 2017

implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1420

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 4 August 2017, the Council adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1420 (2), implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 and establishing an updated list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies (‘the list’). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 4 August 2017, the Council adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1420 (2), implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 and establishing an updated list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies (‘the list’).

| (2) | The Council has determined that there are no longer grounds for keeping one entity on the list. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Council has determined that there are no longer grounds for keeping one entity on the list.

| (3) | The list should therefore be updated accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The list should therefore be updated accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 November 2017.

For the Council

The President

F. MOGHERINI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 70.

1

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1420 of 4 August 2017 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/150 (OJ L 204, 5.8.2017, p. 3).

2

---

ANNEX

The following entity is deleted from the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001:

II.   GROUPS AND ENTITIES

| ‘18. | “Fuerzas armadas revolucionarias de Colombia” — “FARC” (“Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia”).’. |
| --- | --- |

‘18.

---
Case No.: 3:17-cv-00859-JD

NOTICE OF AGREEMENT

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

ROSEMARY M. RIVAS (SBN 209147)

LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 291-2420 

Facsimile: (415) 484-1294

Email: rrivas@zlk.com

Attorney for Plaintiff 

[Additional Counsel listed on signature block.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MARC NUZZO, On Behalf of Himself and All 

Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

INVENSENSE, INC., BEHROOZ ABDI, AMIR 

FAINTUCH, USAMA FAYYAD, EMIKO 

HIGASHI, JON OLSON, AMIT SHAH, ERIC 

STANG, YUNBEI YU, TDK CORPORATION, 

and TDK SENSOR SOLUTIONS

CORPORATION,

 Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00859-JD

CLASS ACTION

NOTICE OF AGREEMENT

Judge: Hon. James Donato

Case 3:17-cv-00859-JD Document 20 Filed 07/10/17 Page 1 of 2
1 Case No.: 3:17-cv-00859-JD

NOTICE OF AGREEMENT

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

WHEREAS, on May 24, 2017, the parties in the above-captioned class action (the “Action”) 

filed a Stipulation Concerning Plaintiff’s Voluntary Dismissal of the Above Action and Plaintiff’s 

Counsel’s Anticipated Application for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (the “Stipulation 

of Dismissal”) (Dkt. No. 16);

WHEREAS, on May 26, 2017, the Court granted in part the Stipulation of Dismissal and 

ordered that the case remain open for an additional 45 days and that if no fee application is filed by 

that time, the case will be closed (Dkt. No. 17); 

WHEREAS, the Parties to this Action, as well as in the other related cases1, have reached a 

collective agreement to resolve the intended fee application; 

NOW, THEREFORE, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Parties submit that it would be 

appropriate for the Court to close this Action.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 10, 2017

OF COUNSEL:

Seth D. Rigrodsky (to be admitted pro hac vice)

Gina M. Serra (to be admitted pro hac vice)

RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.

2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120

Wilmington, DE 19803

Telephone: (302) 295-5310

LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP

By: /s/ Rosemary M. Rivas

Rosemary M. Rivas 

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 291-2420 

Facsimile: (415) 484-1294 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 

1

In addition to the present Action, five later filed actions were commenced against Defendants. See 

Chicorel v. InvenSense, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00901; Dunham v. InvenSense, Inc., et al., Case 

No. 5:17-cv-00957; Isaac v. InvenSense, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01014; Holzman v. InvenSense, 

Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01038; Rollins v. InvenSense, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01574.

Pursuant to the Court’s Order on June 27, 2017, the Court related the five later filed actions to this 

Action (Dkt. No. 19).

Case 3:17-cv-00859-JD Document 20 Filed 07/10/17 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.14

                               Sixth Amendment to
                         Executive Employment Agreement
                                John C. Antenucci


This SIXTH AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (Sixth Amendment") is
entered into as of December 1, 2008, by and between PlanGraphics Inc., a
Colorado Corporation, formerly known as Integrated Spatial Information Solution,
Inc. (`Employer") and John C. Antenucci ("Executive").

WHEREAS, Executive and Employer are parties to an Executive Employment Agreement
dated May 1, 2002 ("the Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, the term of the Agreement was previously extended from time to time
through December 31, 2008,

WHEREAS, the parties mutually desire to further extend the term and modify the
provisions of the Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
hereunder contained, the parties hereby agree as follows:

     6)   Paragraph 2 of this Agreement is hereby amended to change the
          Expiration Date to September 30, 2009.

     7)   As previously agreed to, beginning October 1, 2007, the Executive
          shall place in a salary-at-risk-account and on prorata semi-monthly
          basis, fifteen percent (15%) of the Executive's annual salary,
          $23,550,

     8)   All other terms and condition of the Agreement as amended shall remain
          unchanged


     EXECUTIVE                                PLANGRAPHICS, INC
                                              A Colorado Corporation


     /S/ John C. Antenucci                    /S/ Fred Beisser



     John C. Antenucci                        Frederick G. Beisser

                                              Senior Vice President - Finance
                                              and Secretary

     Date: 12/1/2008                          Date: December 1, 2008
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY APL-GRACE_00044254

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-44 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 16
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY APL-GRACE_00044255

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-44 Filed 10/18/18 Page 2 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-44 Filed 10/18/18 Page 3 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-44 Filed 10/18/18 Page 4 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-44 Filed 10/18/18 Page 5 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-44 Filed 10/18/18 Page 6 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-44 Filed 10/18/18 Page 7 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-44 Filed 10/18/18 Page 8 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-44 Filed 10/18/18 Page 9 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-44 Filed 10/18/18 Page 10 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-44 Filed 10/18/18 Page 11 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-44 Filed 10/18/18 Page 12 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-44 Filed 10/18/18 Page 13 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-44 Filed 10/18/18 Page 14 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-44 Filed 10/18/18 Page 15 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-44 Filed 10/18/18 Page 16 of 16
EXHIBIT C

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 387-3 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 3
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY AKAM-0876

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 387-3 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 3
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY AKAM-0877

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 387-3 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 3
#### Jose Flavio CONTRERAS-RODRIQUEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-74045.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2004.*

Decided April 26, 2004.

Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Attorney at Law, Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Virginia Lum, U.S. Department of *487Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Flavio Contreras-Rodriquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We have jurisdiction to review due process challenges, and we review de novo. *Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft,*291 F.3d 594, 599 (9th Cir.2002). We dismiss in part and deny in part.

This court lacks jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that Contreras-Rodriquez did not qualify for cancellation of removal because he failed to demonstrate “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 890-91 (9th Cir.2003).

To the extent Contreras-Rodriquez challenges the particular application of the streamlining regulations to his case, we lack jurisdiction to review this contention. *See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 853 (9th Cir.2003).

We also lack jurisdiction to review denials of voluntary departure. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); *see Alvarez-Santos v. INS,*332 F.3d 1245,1255 (9th Cir.2003);

Contrary to Contreras-Rodriquez’s contention, the BIA’s failure to articulate reasons for its decision does not violate due process. *See Falcon Carriche,*350 F.3d at 850-51.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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

MORRIS GREEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00607-TSH 

DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 111

Plaintiff Morris Green and Defendant City and County of San Francisco have filed four 

joint discovery letter briefs. ECF No. 111. The Court sets oral argument for September 5, 2019 at 

10:00 a.m. in Courtroom A on the 15th floor for the letter briefs concerning Special Interrogatory 

No. 19, Requests for Production Nos. 38 & 39, and Special Interrogatory No. 22.

The Court GRANTS Green’s motion to compel with respect to Request for Admission No. 

27 and ORDERS the City to respond within 30 days. Whether or not Cruz applied for the exact 

same position that Green did is immaterial because it appears that she applied for and got a 

comparable position. That is enough to make her experience and qualifications relevant. 

The Court GRANTS Green’s motion to compel with respect to Requests for Production 

Nos. 31 and 32 and ORDERS the City to produce responsive documents within 30 days. These 

documents are directly relevant to Green’s claim of discrimination. The City asserts that Green 

lacks the requisite experience for this job, but these documents will allow Green to test that

assertion. The City is correct that these RFPs implicate privacy interests, but that concern can be 

mitigated by the entry of a protective order. This District has model protective orders that parties 

can use. See https://cand.uscourts.gov/model-protective-orders. The Court ORDERS the parties 

to submit a stipulated proposed protective order within 15 days to address the City’s privacy 
2

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

concern. Finally, the City’s argument that allowing this discovery will open the door to similar 

discovery for the several dozen other positions Green applied for does not make sense because fact 

discovery closed on August 22, 2019, and yesterday was the last day to move to compel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2019

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge
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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Noble Roman's, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul W. Mobley,
Chief Executive 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:

     (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.


                             /s/ Paul W. Mobley
                             -------------------------
                             Paul W. Mobley
                             Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                             of Noble Roman's, Inc.

                             Date: May 8, 2006
Case 5:17-cr-00062-BLF Document 5 Filed 01/26/17 Page 1 of 1
2021

女性参加临床试验

= 希望

女性参加临床试验 (CHINESE)

临床试验是帮助证明测试或治疗是否有效

和安全的研究。参加试验的方法有很多

种。有些试验会询问您已经使用的治疗方

法。在其他试验中,您服用一种新药。一

些临床试验用的是健康人。另一些则使用

有特定健康问题的人。

女性参加临床试验了吗?

是的。 女性已经在临床试验中。 但是,来自不同背景的女性仍然需要参与。 

所有年龄,种族和族裔的女性以及残疾或慢性健康状况的女性都应考虑参加临床

试验。

您可以考虑自己参加临床试验来提供帮助。 通过帮助医生更多地了解女性的健

康状况,您可以有所作为。

女性为什么要参加临床试验?

医疗产品对男性和女性的影响不同。女性参与是很重要的,因为女性有时会有不

同的副作用。女性的身体也会影响药物和设备的工作方式。

询问您的医疗保健提

供者您是否适进行临

床试验。

美国食品及药物管理局女性健康办公室

www.fda.gov/womeninclinicaltrials
参加临床试验前您应该知道的15件事

参加临床试验是您的选择。 您不应该感到压力参加。 

您有权随时退出。 在临床试验中有保护人们的条款。

知情同意是在您加入之前了解有关临床试验的关键事实的过程。这并不是您需

要知道的全部,但它会帮助您开始了解。在您同意参加之前,请确保您回答您

的问题:

目的和将要发生的事情

1.

2.

3.

4.

5. 研究结束后会发生什么

可能的风险和收益

试验可能提供治疗或筛查,但不能保证您的健

康状况会好转。药物、测试或治疗可能对您不

起作用。

6.

7.

8.

9.

任何其他支持或可能的费用

10. 本研究将支付的治疗或服务费用 

11. 如果研究提供儿童看护或交通服务

12. 您可能要付出的代价

13. 您的保险范围

如何获取更多信息

14. 如果您有问题,您应该联系谁

15. 如何获得结果

美国食品及药物管理局的角色是什么?

美国食品及药物管理局确保人们使用的医疗方法是安全和有效的。美国食品及药物管理局不

会开发新的治疗方法或进行临床试验。

美国食品及药物管理局女性健康办公室正在与国家卫生研究院女性健康研究办公室合作开展

一项倡议,以促进不同女性参与临床试验。如欲了解更多有关活动的资料,请浏览:

www.fda.gov/womeninclinicaltrials
EXHIBIT 5

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-6 Filed 09/06/18 Page 1 of 5
M&!wn,l!!i(,tA 

A-gt1rtim,,(-M!lmL 

Allti,;tl'f,11:ihsJ. 

f1⁄4:.i!�>',.1$1»19H"-

!W&, El'lc SN\,..,.;,1tl,. Pe(fl( J. 

�.Si:¢!:M'.. 

Gottut!lfi.#. � M 

Bol,1$Ch,&t)-®,4 

OO'nsl»/tl, .lllffmy 

�·-OQnakl w, 3=i�N 

=!t�� 

== 

�-P�rJ 

t')m:Wh�. 

gf:�Sr�m 

l'Ji,r:flt\·�ti ��iJ.i_rililff. 

(}c(ia!�;� Ourlll. He� 

�� ="' 

-

..,.,., 

�, 

A$�1111& 

,,,_ 

�'8'» �!U 

-

= 

� 

Piiii.i 

A�iiue 

4:l9PJA, EST 

TU!illldal', f'�t11}' 1.1.. :X:H1 

Xl;\,:�-lt!)(lltl11$ 

=J3i.cb 

. �ill', 

Fltfl:'1¢4 8111:.marxfMa.'ml 

_u., 

�:n-Low-:td� 

Pif�. Stilltf. Zi.hl !!!t!d 

�o.;, 

KitrdU,1•<M­

�llWEI� �l�an,,i�fl!t 

Khit•'TM�� 

F�IJarnnimf'Met't1tf o&.�11}'.8i,,:(� 

�o::El!l!l 

� 0.y 

=;=:== tt,:\lo_tffiimi.1. 

u� aiiman 

�i:-iw, DtiY 

.f:V*!ta.8:l'iun3MMatffl 

DLA�r 

�AtM l�-'bi:i_utl.4\Y.yi:,111 1 i:M_lom&r$:� _I Re!)tll'1tt l P'I�f PQci:-f f Ttlfm!i*' Cord!tbns ��HALM!kliaP�U.S.Aiii%111tt�/J. 

$,tfl ftn'Wl:!_00 � ftattdf.�·t,. 

SlnFten� 

Slm-Ffl!� 

Sin t'ral'IC&:o 

san Fram:Jsi:o 

S:artFra� 

&!nfnr� 

SpiFl811ciM:o 

SlmF!:b'l�

�fran�� 

Si11F:�� 

Sm.Fill� 

$m Fm.'lti$co 

�Ff1!;;d$M Sant'�� 

5.-n ful'!dWo 

$Mlftri.lici.1m 

t·��== $,thf�l i'f �F1#c!tro �f�r

San� 

Get Jirem'/Wt acc*U 3(J-.day !rt1f 

Sub$oti00 hllWfo;tmrl-,r $1 a 1:by 

R&�f- ef;1iiy tt.adliM$ 

·C!l,_.1< ""i,;_r'f""',e,-:a�--OOe k...-., Fil�. �

Gi,kli,i\\rj"'l�-Prn�;,i, '(9t

Sli!a ,,,,_

CA 

�=� U�Suiies 

Oi\fflf� 

CA 

IJ�� 

"" Unie<:1�$ 

"' United� 

Ur#itd� 

CA Vtl!\od SW\'!& 

C" V�� 

, ... 

,,,.. 

,001 

CA'. U�Sffl,"' 

CA 0� stiMS t906 

<:A \;Jill'��$ 

g: == 

=== 

--

=�VA.���

l.!Ji�!!<A��­

tP,��i0$ =� 

,,,,, 

1'"4 

·-S!oc<J 

'"" 

111H 

-

,,.. 

"""'"" 

...,, 

,...

'"'" 

2006 """ - ""'' "'"' R;,!jl.,, 

�20 

'" 

"' 

""" '"' 

015 

3'5 

"" 

,,. 

�61) 

51S 
Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-6 Filed 09/06/18 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-6 Filed 09/06/18 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-6 Filed 09/06/18 Page 5 of 5