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

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICK R TUCKER, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

NOVATO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET 

AL., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 17-cv-00642-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 5 

Defendant Novato Unified School District (the “District”) filed its Motion to Dismiss on 

February 15, 2017. (Dkt. No. 5.) The matter came on for hearing on March 28, 2017. Having 

carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted, and for the reasons set forth in full 

detail on the record on March 28, 2017, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no later than April 27, 2017. The District shall 

file its response to plaintiff’s complaint twenty-one (21) days thereafter. 

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 5.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 29, 2017 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:17-cv-00642-YGR Document 9 Filed 03/29/17 Page 1 of 1
1

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00561

UBIQUITI’S AND CHING-HAN TSAI’S CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES AND PARTIES

sf-3746991

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 LEE TAYLOR (SBN 161368)

JTaylor@mofo.com 

JOYCE LIOU (SBN 277720)

JLiou@mofo.com

AMANDA D. PHILLIPS (SBN 305614)

APhillips@mofo.com

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street

San Francisco, California 94105-2482

Telephone: (415) 268-7000

Facsimile: (415) 268-7522

Attorneys for Defendants

UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC. AND

CHING-HAN TSAI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC., UBIQUITI

NETWORKS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, 

CHING-HAN TSAI, and DOES 1-20,

inclusive

Defendants.

Case No. 5:17-cv-00561

DEFENDANTS UBIQUITI 

NETWORKS, INC.’S AND 

CHING-HAN TSAI’S

CERTIFICATION OF 

INTERESTED ENTITIES OR 

PERSONS (CIVIL L.R. 3-15)

UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC.

Counterclaimant,

v.

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

Counterdefendant.

Case 3:17-cv-00561-WHO Document 18 Filed 03/07/17 Page 1 of 2
2

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00561

UBIQUITI’S AND CHING-HAN TSAI’S CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES AND PARTIES

sf-3746991

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

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-15, the undersigned certifies that as of this date, other than the 

named parties, there is no such interest to report.

Dated: March 7, 2017 JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR

JOYCE LIOU

AMANDA D. PHILLIPS

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Jennifer Lee Taylor

JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC. AND

CHING-HAN TSAI

Case 3:17-cv-00561-WHO Document 18 Filed 03/07/17 Page 2 of 2
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices of meetings published under

the ‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (Pub.

L. 94-409) 5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3).

Sunshine Act Meetings Federal Register

3031

Vol. 60, No. 8

Thursday, January 12, 1995

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[USITC SE–95–03]

TIME AND DATE: January 31, 1995 at 10:00

a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20436.

STATUS:

1. Agenda for future meeting

2. Minutes

3. Ratification List

4. Inv. Nos. 731–TA–678–682 (Final)

(Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India,

Italy, Japan, and Spain)—briefing and

vote.

5. Outstanding action jackets:

1. GC–94–120, Initial determination in Inv.

No. 337–TA–368 (Certain Rechargeable

Nickel Metal Hydride Anode Materials

and Batteries).

2. GC–94–121, Final initial determination

finding no violation of section 337 in

Inv. No. 337–TA–358 (Certain

Recombinantly Produced Human Growth

Hormones).

In accordance with Commission

policy, subject matter listed above, not

disposed of at the scheduled meeting,

may be carried over to the agenda of the

following meeting.

By order of the Commission:

Issued: January 9, 1995

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–996 Filed 1–10–95; 3:01 pm]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Thursday,

December 8, 1994.

PLACE: Board Conference Room,

Eleventh Floor, 1099 Fourteenth St.,

NW., Washington, DC 20570.

STATUS: Closed to public observation

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552b(c)(2)

(matters relating solely to the internal

personnel rules and practices of the

Agency).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Case

handling procedures.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

John C. Truesdale, Executive Secretary,

Washington, DC 20570, Telephone:

(202) 273–1940.

Dated, Washington, DC, December 23,

1994.

By direction of the Board:

John C. Truesdale,

Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations

Board.

[FR Doc. 94–925 Filed 1–10–94; 2:06 pm]

BILLING CODE 7545–01–M
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

EUREKA DIVISON

ALEXIS JOEL AMAYA,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent.

Case No. 17-cv-0108-NJV (PR) 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee. He notes that he has another petition pending in 

this court challenging the same conviction. In Case No. 16-cv-5069 NJV, the petition was stayed 

so petitioner could exhaust further claims. Exhaustion has not been completed. In this case, 

petitioner states that he has new claims he seeks to add. All claims must be brought in the earlier 

filed petition. Therefore, this case is dismissed. When petitioner exhausts all of his claims in the 

earlier filed petition he may request to amend the petition and add these new claims and the court 

will consider his arguments at that time. The new claims must also be exhausted. 

This case is DISMISSED. The clerk shall close this file. Because reasonable jurists 

would not find the result here debatable, a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is DENIED. See 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (standard for COA). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2017

________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:17-cv-00108-NJV Document 3 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 1
---

Exhibit 99.6


I, Brian Meadows, certify that: 1.
     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of GLG Life Tech Corporation;2.
     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
     The issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the issuer and have:a)
     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
     Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
     Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures; as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
     Disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting; and5.
     The issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a)
     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuers internal control over financial reporting. Date: March 31, 2011 /s/ Brian Meadows
Brian Meadows 
Chief Financial Officer


---
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A)

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Brian Gevry, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Titanium Asset Management
Corp. (the “Registrant”); and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this Amendment No. 1 to the report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Amendment No. 1 to the report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: April 30, 2013



| | /s/ Brian Gevry        
| | -----------------------
| | Brian Gevry            
| | Chief Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00942-CR

Ray Martin RUIZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6537

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED September 11, 2019.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
STATE of Louisiana v. Napoleon GONZALEZ

NO. 2019-KK-0657

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 17, 2019

Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

GUIDRY, J., recused.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 697 

Designating July 2022 as ‘‘Plastic Pollution Action Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 23, 2022 

Mr. MERKLEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating July 2022 as ‘‘Plastic Pollution Action Month’’. 

Whereas plastic pollution represents a global threat that will 

require individual and collective action, both nationally 

and internationally, to address; 

Whereas, since the 1950s, over 8,000,000,000 tons of plastic 

have been produced worldwide; 

Whereas, in the United States— 

(1) just 9 percent of plastic waste is sorted for recycling; and 

(2) less than 3 percent of plastic waste is recycled 

into a similar quality product; 

Whereas a recent study found that, despite the United States 

only accounting for 4 percent of the global population in 

2016, in that same year the United States— 

(1) generated 17 percent of all plastic waste; and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 697 IS 

(2) ranked third among all countries contributing to 

coastal plastic pollution; 

Whereas single-use plastics account for at least 40 percent of 

the plastic produced every year; 

Whereas over 12,000,000 tons of plastic waste enter the 

ocean every year from land-based sources alone; 

Whereas, if no action is taken, the flow of plastics into the 

ocean is expected to triple by 2040; 

Whereas studies estimate that there are between 

15,000,000,000,000 and 51,000,000,000,000 pieces of 

plastic in the oceans; 

Whereas, globally, 100,000 marine mammals die every year 

as a result of plastic pollution; 

Whereas plastics, and associated chemicals of plastics, directly impact human health; 

Whereas studies suggest that, every week, humans swallow 

the amount of plastic that is in a credit card; 

Whereas taking action to reduce plastic use, collect and clean 

up litter, and reuse and recycle more plastics will lead to 

less plastic pollution; 

Whereas, every July, people challenge themselves to reduce 

their plastic footprint through ‘‘Plastics Free July’’; 

Whereas, during the International Coastal Cleanup in 2020, 

nearly 950,000 people across the globe cleaned up over 

10,000 tons of plastic from beaches; 

Whereas switching to reusable items instead of single-use 

items can prevent waste, save water, and reduce litter; 

and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•SRES 697 IS 

Whereas July 2022 is an appropriate month to designate as 

Plastic Pollution Action Month to recommit to taking action, individually and as a country, to reduce plastic pollution: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates July 2022 as ‘‘Plastic Pollution 

3 Action Month’’; 

4 (2) recognizes the dangers to human health and 

5 the environment posed by plastic pollution; and 

6 (3) encourages all individuals in the United 

7 States to protect, conserve, maintain, and rebuild 

8 the environment by responsibly participating in ac9 tivities to reduce plastic pollution in July 2022 and 

10 year-round. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Case 5:05-mj-70325-MRGD Document 8 Filed 06/15/05 Page 1 of 1
Jamie WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-4669

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 15.1**

November 6, 2006

The Board of Directorsand Stockholders, Sun Microsystems, Inc.

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8Nos. 33-18602, 33-25860, 33-33344, 33-38220, 33-51129,33-56577, 333-09867, 333-34543, 333-34651, 333-38163,333-40677, 333-40675, 333-59503, 333-62987, 333-65531,333-67183, 333-72413, 333-86267, 333-89391, 333-90907,333-35796, 333-45540, 333-48080, 333-49788, 333-52314,333-56358, 333-59466, 333-61120, 333-62034, 333-68140,333-73218, 333-98097, 333-100189, 333-101332, 333-101323,333-108639, 333-109303, 333-111968, 333-114550, 333-122586,333-127063, 333-128324, 333-128325, 333-131507 and333-138593; and Form S-3 No. 333-81101) of Sun Microsystems, Inc.of our reports dated September 1, 2006, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Sun Microsystems, Inc., Sun Microsystems, Inc.management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingof Sun Microsystems, Inc., included in this Quarterly Report (Form 10-Q)for the quarter ended October 1, 2006.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c)of the Securities Act of 1933, our reports are not a part of the registrationstatements prepared or certified by accountants within the meaning of Section 7or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.
| Very truly yours,         |
|---------------------------|
|                      |   |
| /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |

 

----
Dennis Lee DAVIS, Appellant, v. SUNTRUST BANK, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2203

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:05-cv-01946-MHP Document 19 Filed 09/22/05 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:05-cv-01946-MHP Document 19 Filed 09/22/05 Page 2 of 2
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING APPLE'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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING APPLE'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 1229

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

follows. Apple shall file redacted public versions of the below exhibits consistent with this order 

by Friday, January 11, 2019, at 12:00 p.m.

Document Portion of Page Ruling

QX9097 APL-QC-FTC_20218611 GRANTED.

CX-0534 CX-0534 pages 004, 005 GRANTED.

CX0597 CX0597 pages 002, 004, 005, 007, 008 GRANTED.

CX0855 CX0855 pages 008, 013, 017, 019, 020, 021, 023, 024, 026, 039 GRANTED.

CX0856 CX0856-001 GRANTED.

CX0858 CX0858 pages 001, 002, 003 GRANTED.

JX0107 JX0107 pages 013, 014, 015 GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1232 Filed 01/10/19 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manfred KREUTER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-20560.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 4, 2004.

*951James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Kathlyn Giannaula Snyder, Assistant US Attorney, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

George McCall Secrest, Jr., Bennett *&*Secrest, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Defendant-Appellant Manfred Kreuter appeals his convictions for wire fraud and money laundering. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his wire fraud convictions and that, because those convictions do not stand, there is no underlying illegal act to support the money laundering conviction. After reviewing the record and the arguments of counsel, we are satisfied that a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence established the essential elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. *United States v. Romero-Cruz,*201 F.3d 374, 376 (5th Cir.2000); *United States v. Jaramillo,*42 F.3d 920, 923 (5th Cir.1995).

Kreuter also asserts that the district court erred in admitting into evidence letters of credit and testimony relating to those letters of credit, insisting that the documents were not properly verified and constituted inadmissible hearsay. To the extent that the records were introduced to show Kreuter’s knowledge of what they said, the letters of credit were not hearsay. Fed.R.Evid. 801(c). To the extent that the documents were used to show that Kreuter received funds as a result of his entering into transactions with the international buyers, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence: It would be admissible under the “residual exception” to the hearsay rule contained in Fed.R.Evid. 807. *See United States v. Wilson,*249 F.3d 366, 374-76 (5th Cir. 2001); *United, States v. Perez,*217 F.3d 323, 329-30 (5th Cir.2000).

Kreuter argues further that the district court erred in allowing a witness to make legal conclusions in her testimony. He cannot establish that the admission of the statements constituted reversible error. *See Kaiser v. New York, 394*U.S. 280, 381 n. 5, 89 S.Ct. 1044, 22 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); *United States v. Miranda,*248 F.3d 434, 439 (5th Cir.2001).

Finally, Kreuter asserts that the district court erred in not instructing the jury that, to establish wire fraud, the government had to show that the defendant acted “willfully” or “voluntarily with specific intent to disobey or disregard the law.” As he did not object to the instructions on this ground or request this instruction, review is for plain error. *United States v. Martin,*332 F.3d 827, 834 (5th Cir.2003). Kreuter has not shown that the instruction given was plainly erroneous. *See United States v. Ismoila,*100 F.3d 380, 399 (5th Cir.1996). Kreuter’s convictions and the sentences imposed are, therefore, AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
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-00561-WHO Document 21-1 Filed 03/08/17 Page 1 of 1