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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

D.C., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VALENTINO WALKER,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00719-MEJ 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On February 13, 2017, Plaintiffs D.C., et al. filed the instant complaint. On May 11, 2017, 

the Court explained that because it had denied Plaintiffs’ applications to proceed in forma 

pauperis, Plaintiffs were responsible for serving Defendants. Status Order, Dkt. No. 13. Plaintiffs 

successfully served a number of Defendants, but did not serve Defendant Valentino Walker. Proof 

of Service, Dkt. No. 14. On September 25, 2017, the Court reminded Plaintiffs that “[p]ursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), ‘[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the 

complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss 

the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified 

time.’” Order Dismissing Certain Defendants and Requiring Plaintiffs to Serve Defendant Walker 

at 2, Dkt. No. 31, Dkt. No. 31 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)). The Court ordered Plaintiffs to 

serve Walker within 30 days of the date of that Order, or to show good cause why that deadline 

should be extended. Id. To date, no proof of service of the summons and complaint has been 

filed, and Plaintiffs have not requested to extend the deadline. See Dkt.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause, in 

writing and no later than November 30, 2017, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to 

serve within the time required by Rule 4(m). Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a 

written response will be deemed an admission that Plaintiffs do not intend to prosecute, and the 
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

case will be dismissed without prejudice. Thus, it is imperative that the Court receive a written

response by the deadline above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2017

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge
Joe F. DAIAK, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-9648.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.
Crystal PURCELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2901

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 7, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and David M. Dixon, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Crystal Purcell appeals the order denying her pre-sentence motion to withdraw her no contest plea and the judgment and sentence that the trial court entered based on that plea. Because Purcell established good cause to withdraw the plea, we reverse.

The State charged Purcell with two counts of child abuse, pursuant to section 827.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2015). She entered a no contest plea to these charges. Prior to sentencing, Purcell moved to withdraw her plea, alleging good cause because her attorney failed to inform her of the negative consequences a plea would have in the corresponding dependency case. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion.

"Failure to inform a defendant of a collateral consequence of a plea cannot render a plea involuntary." *Brown v. State*, 943 So. 2d 899, 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (citing *State v. Partlow*, 840 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2003) ). This Court has previously held that the potential for the termination of parental rights is a collateral consequence to a plea. *Slater v. State*, 880 So. 2d 802, 804 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). This Court explained:

> Termination of parental rights is not a direct or immediate consequence of such pleas and is not a punishment. It is not automatic, but instead entails the discretion of the Department of Children and Families. Further, termination of parental rights has no bearing on the range of punishment a sentencing court may impose.

*Id.*

However, "[w]hen a defendant files a motion to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(f), he is entitled to withdraw his plea as a matter of right when good cause is shown." *Johnson v. State*, 947 So. 2d 1208, 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). "Failure to inform [a defendant] of [a] collateral consequence may not have rendered the plea involuntary, but ... ignorance of it does meet the 'good cause' test for a pre-sentence plea withdrawal." *Id.*

Thus, while failing to inform Purcell of the collateral consequence of the *1152termination of her parental rights may not have rendered her plea involuntary, her ignorance of the consequence does establish good cause.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WALLIS, EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 35.3

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

DB Servicing Corporation

Discover Card Master Trust I

The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of DB Servicing Corporation (DBSC), hereby certifies that:



|(a) | A review of the activities of DBSC for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2012 and of its performance under the Amended and Restated Servicing Agreement, dated
January 1, 2011, by and between DBSC and Discover Bank (the Agreement), was made under my supervision.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, DBSC has fulfilled all of its obligations in all material respects under the Agreement for the fiscal year ended
November 30, 2012.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this
Certificate this 19thday of February 2013.



By:

/s/ James V. PanzarinoJames V. Panzarino,Executive Vice President
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 21131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10555]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy


Government Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States 
Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and are 
available for licensing by the Department of the Navy.
    Copies of the patents cited are available from the Commissioner of 
Patents and Trademarks, Washington, D.C. 20231 for $3.00 each. Requests 
for copies of patents must include the patent number.
    Requests for copies of the patent application cited should be 
directed to the Office of Naval Research, ONR 00CC, Ballston Tower One, 
800 North Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia 22217-5660 and must 
include the application serial number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. R.J. Erickson, Staff Patent Attorney, Office of Naval Research, ONR 
00CC, Ballston Tower One, 800 North Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia 
22217-5660, telephone (703) 696-4001.
    Patent No. 4,867,917: METHOD FOR SYNTHESIS OF DIACETYLENIC 
COMPOUNDS; patented 19 September 1989;
    Patent No. 4,877,501: PROCESS FOR FABRICATION OF LIPID 
MICROSTRUCTURES; patented 31 October 1989;
    Patent No. 4,911,981; METAL CLAD LIPID MICROSTRUCTURES; patented 27 
March 1990; and
    Patent Application Serial No. 08/077,503: METHOD OF CONTROLLED 
RELEASE AND CONTROLLED RELEASE MICROSTRUCTURES; filed 17 June 1993.

    Dated: April 21, 1995.
M.D. Schetzsle,
LT, JAGC, USNR, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-10555 Filed 4-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-AE-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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATSUO ELECTRIC COMPANY 

LIMITED,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cr-00073-JD-1 

ORDER RE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT, 

18 U.S.C. § 3161

At the change of plea hearing on October 25, 2017, the United States acknowledged that 

the 70-day clock for bringing a criminal defendant to trial as mandated by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 

U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1), had lapsed for Matsuo Electric Company Limited. Defense counsel 

responded by suggesting that Matsuo would waive its rights under the Speedy Trial Act, and 

proposing to exclude the time between May 24, 2017, and October 25, 2017, on the ground that 

Matsuo had been engaged in good faith plea negotiations with the government.

Plea negotiation between the parties is not expressly listed as a basis for excluding time, 

see 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1), or as a factor for the Court to consider in granting an excludable

continuance under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). And even if that was a cognizable ground, the Act 

does not allow for retroactive cures. See, e.g., United States v. Suarez-Perez, 484 F.3d 537, 541 

(8th Cir. 2007) (“The Speedy Trial Act does not provide for retroactive continuances.”); United 

States v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 545 (7th Cir. 1983) (same); United States v. Carey, 746 F.2d 228, 

230 (4th Cir. 1984) (noting “the invalidity of nunc pro tunc continuances after expiration of the 

time prescribed by the Act for the commencement of the trial”).

It may be that, despite the time lapse, the defendant is perfectly comfortable forgoing any 

objections under the Speedy Trial Act. But it is not clear to the Court that this is the case, or if 
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

that is even legally possible. Consequently, the status of this prosecution is in limbo under the 

Speedy Trial Act. The Court is unwilling to expend any more judicial resources on this case until 

this issue has been sorted out. The referral to the probation office for the preparation of a presentence report is suspended, and the probation office should not take any action pending further 

order of the Court. Matsuo is ordered to advise the Court by November 6, 2017, in a brief not to 

exceed 10 pages, on what it considers to be an appropriate course of action, and to provide legal 

citations supporting its position. The government may file a responsive brief of the same 

maximum length if it so desires no later than November 13, 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2017

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge
Outside Director Compensation Policy



 Exhibit 10.02 
 Concur Technologies, Inc. 
 Amended and Restated Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy 

  

	1.	Effective as of December 3, 2008, the compensation for the existing outside members of the Board of Directors (“Board”) of Concur Technologies, Inc.
(“Concur”), and each new outside Board member who joins the Board after December 3, 2008, shall be an annual cash payment equal to $90,000 and an annual stock grant equal to 3,250 restricted stock units. Effective as of
March 16, 2009, the compensation for the then-existing outside members of the Board of Concur, and each new outside Board member who joins the Board after March 16, 2009, shall be increased to an annual cash payment equal to $100,000 and
an annual stock grant equal to 4,500 restricted stock units. 

  

	2.	The annual cash payment and stock grant described above will be made as of March 15 of each year as consideration for Board and committee services during the prior 12-month
period, and will apply only if the applicable Board member served continuously on the Board for the prior 12-month period. However, for members joining the Board during a given 12-month period, the first annual cash payment and stock grant will be
pro rated from the commencement date to the next March 15. The stock granted will be in the form of restricted stock units, and will vest over 4 years with 25% vested on each anniversary of the grant, subject to the terms of the 2007 Equity
Incentive Plan and the then-current executive form of restricted stock unit award documentation. 

  

	3.	Outside Board members will receive no other compensation for services on the Board or any committee of the Board, provided that all Board members shall be reimbursed for their
reasonable travel expenses in attending Board and committee meetings. 

  

	4.	Effective as of October 1, 2006, Concur shall not grant further options under the 1998 Directors Stock Option Plan without the express approval by the Board after
October 1, 2006. 

  

	5.	Board members who are employees of Concur will receive compensation as approved by the Board or the Compensation Committee of the Board, and will not receive compensation under this
policy.
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 106 

Expressing support for local law enforcement officers and condemning efforts 

to defund local law enforcement agencies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2024 

Mr. EZELL (for himself and Mr. RUTHERFORD) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for local law enforcement officers and 

condemning efforts to defund local law enforcement agencies. 

Whereas the brave men and women in local law enforcement 

work tirelessly to protect the communities they serve; 

Whereas local law enforcement officers are tasked with upholding the rule of law and ensuring public safety; 

Whereas local law enforcement officers selflessly put themselves in harm’s way to fight crime, get drugs off the 

streets, and protect the innocent; 

Whereas defunding police narratives vilify and demonize local 

law enforcement officers and put them at greater risk of 

danger; 

Whereas local law enforcement officers take an oath to never 

betray the public trust; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 106 IH 

Whereas the local law enforcement community protects our 

streets, acknowledges the rights of all Americans, and 

keeps citizens safe from harm; 

Whereas local law enforcement officers are recognized for 

their public service to all, knowing they face extremely 

dangerous situations while carrying out their duties; 

Whereas a healthy and collaborative relationship between 

local law enforcement officers and the communities they 

serve is essential to creating mutually respectful dialogue; 

and 

Whereas local law enforcement officers deserve respect and 

profound gratitude: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) recognizes and appreciates the dedication 

4 and devotion demonstrated by the men and women 

5 of local law enforcement who keep the Nation’s com6 munities safe; 

7 (2) extends its gratitude to all local law enforce8 ment officers and their families for their sacrifice 

9 and service; and 

10 (3) condemns calls to defund, disband, dis11 mantle, or abolish the police. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Universal American Financial Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert A. Waegelein, 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 to the best of my 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Robert A. Waegelein

Robert A. Waegelein
Chief Financial Officer
May 15, 2003
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JUAN QUINTANILLA VASQUEZ, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 17-cv-00755 CW

 

ORDER REQUIRING PRINCIPALS OF 

DEFENDANT LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC. 

TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING SET 

FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2022 

Re: Dkt. No. 218 

Now pending is Plaintiffs’ motion for an order to show cause why Defendant Libre by 

Nexus, Inc. (LBN) should not be held in civil contempt and sanctioned. Docket No. 218. The 

motion is set for a hearing on September 15, 2022. 

Micheal Donovan, Evan Ajin, and Richard Moore, who are the principals of LBN 

according to findings made in RLI Ins. Co. v. Nexus Servs., Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00066, 2022 WL 

2654227, at *1 (W.D. Va. July 8, 2022), are HEREBY ORDERED to appear at the September 15, 

2022, hearing. 

The hearing will be held via Zoom webinar. Instructions for remote access will be posted 

on the docket at a later date. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the 

general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

Dated: September 7, 2022 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 221 Filed 09/07/22 Page 1 of 1
|PROPOSED|JUDGMENT

Vasquez v. Libre by Nexus, Inc., No. 4:17-cv-00755-CW

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

JUAN QUINTANILLA VASQUEZ,

GABRIELA PERDOMO ORTIZ, and VICTOR 

HUGO CATALAN MOLIN, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC. and JOHN DOES 

1-50,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:17-cv-755-CW

|PROPOSED| JUDGMENT

Pursuant to this Court’s January 23, 2023 Order For Civil Contempt Sanctions Against 

Officers and Principals of Defendant Libre By Nexus, Inc., the principals of Libre By Nexus, Inc., 

namely Micheal Donovan, Evan Ajin, and Richard Moore are jointly and severally liable for 

$165,350.77, immediately due and payable to Plaintiffs as of February 6, 2023.

The total amount of $165,350.77 now due and payable includes:

1. $74,952.00 for Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees incurred for their November 2022 motion for 

civil contempt sanctions against Donovan, Ajin, and Moore.

2. $34,142.60 for Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees for their 2021 motion to enforce, plus $2,473.15 

interest1from July 30, 2021, to February 6, 2023.

3. $53,021.60 for Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees for their August 2022 motion to hold Defendant 

Libre by Nexus, Inc., in civil contempt, plus $761.42 interest from October 17, 2022, to 

February 6, 2023.

1

Interest, for the purpose of this judgment, was calculated “at a rate equal to the weekly average 

1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding the date of the judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). 

Interest was computed daily and compounded annually. 28 U.S.C. § 1961(b).

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 248-2 Filed 01/30/23 Page 1 of 2
|PROPOSED|JUDGMENT

Vasquez v. Libre by Nexus, Inc., No. 4:17-cv-00755-CW

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

Class Counsel and/or Plaintiffs are authorized to collect and receive such payments 

through judgment collection and enforcement procedures, provided that they will then transfer 

these amounts to the Administrator for distribution.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED:

Honorable Claudia Wilken

United States District Judge

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 248-2 Filed 01/30/23 Page 2 of 2
Comprehensive Credit
Facility Agreement of Maximum Amount (“Credit Facility
Agreement”)
Entered into by and between Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd (“the Debtor”) and Shenzhen Longgang Branch, Shenzhen
Development
Bank (the “Creditor”) Dated December 8th, 2008

      


      Main
articles:

      
        	
                Ø

              	
                Contract
      number: Shenfa Longgang Zongzi
20081203001;

              


      

      
        	
                Ø

              	
                Maximum
      amount of credit facilities to be provided: RMB 150
    million;

              


      

      
        	
                Ø

              	
                Term:
      from December 8, 2008 to December 8,
2009.

              


      

      
        	
                Ø

              	
                Purpose
      of the loan is to provide working capital for the
      Company;

              


      

      
        	
                Ø

              	
                Remedies
      in the event of breach of contract include adjustment of the credit
      amount, suspension of credit, imposition of punitive interest and overdue
      interest, an increase of guarantee deposit and the call back of loan
      principal and interest before
maturity.

              


      

      


      Headlines
of the articles omitted

      
        	
                Ø

              	
                The
      procedure on using the comprehensive credit
  facility

              


      

      
        	
                Ø

              	
                The
      declaration and promise of the
debtor

              


      

      
        	
                Ø

              	
                Transferring
      of the credit facility under the maximum
amount

              


      

      
        	
                Ø

              	
                Disputation
      settlement

              


      

      
        	
                Ø

              	
                Validity

              


      

      
        	
                Ø

              	
                Notification
Johnny L. JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-833

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed July 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.