alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Fy L
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. E D
OAKLAND DIVISION

MAY 7 9 2017
United States of America, Case No. (Leg, ooo hst SUSAN ¥, sog,
Noi iDsigSt RICT rCOvar
Plaintiff, STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING — #5 MFEing

DANGELO cy mea

For the reason
Trial Act from

TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

Defendant.

stated by the parties on the asi on__§ , 2017, the Court excludes time under the Speedy
S\\4 , 2017, to , 2017 5 finds that the ends of justice served by the

continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(7)(A).

ve

The Court makes this finding and bases this continuance on the following factors:

Failure to grant a continuance would be likely to result in a miscarriage of justice.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(D.

The case is so unusual or so complex, due to /circle applicable reasons] the number of
defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact

or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or the trial
itself within the time limits established by this section. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).

Failure to grant a continuance would deny the defendant reasonable time to obtain counsel,
taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel,
given counsel's other scheduled case commitments, taking into account the exercise of due
diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time
necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B\(iv).

For the reasons stated on the record, it is further ordered that time is excluded under 18 U.S.C. §
3161(b) and waived with the consent of the defendant under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
5.1(c) and (d).

For the reasons stated on the record, it is further ordered that time is excluded under 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(1)(E)(F) for delay resulting from removal/transport of the defendant to another district.

IT IS SO ORDERED. JS

14 2
DATED: , 2017
GONNA M. RYU

STIPULATED: x

United States Magistrate Judge

MWuprclubl Beye

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for Defendan
Martin MORALES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-1111

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1
   1.
    
    Dionex Corporations Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009,
and to which this Certification is attached (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Dionex Corporation.
 By:
    
    /s/ Frank Witney

Name: Frank WitneyTitle: President, Chief Executive Officer and DirectorDate: November 6, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 739 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 739

  Authorizing the printing with illustrations of a document entitled 
   ``Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, 1867-2022''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 2, 2022

Mrs. Murray (for Mr. Leahy (for himself and Mr. Shelby)) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Authorizing the printing with illustrations of a document entitled 
   ``Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, 1867-2022''.

    Resolved, That there be printed with illustrations as a Senate 
document a compilation of materials entitled ``Committee on 
Appropriations, United States Senate, 1867-2022'', and that there be 
printed six hundred additional copies of such document for the use of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
                                 <all>
```
Rodney D. THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-216

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed July 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Report on Assessment of Compliance

                     with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria

I.  The undersigned authorized officer of LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services,
    Inc. (the "Company") is responsible for assessing the Company's
    compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as defined in 17 CFR
    Part 229 Section 1122(d) (4) (xi) and 1122(d) (4) (xii) (the "Regulation
    AB Servicing Criteria") for residential and commercial mortgage backed
    securities for which the Company served as third-party property tax
    payment provider on the underlying collateral (the "Platform"). Except
    as set forth in the preceding sentence, the servicing criteria set forth
    in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d) are not applicable to the activities
    the Company performed with respect to the Platform.

2.  The Company used the criteria in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d) to
    assess the compliance with the applicable Regulation AB Servicing
    Criteria.

3.  Under one of the services offered by the Company, some customers may
    elect to remit tax payments directly to tax agencies without having the
    Company remit those property tax payments through our tax payment
    service. We refer to these customers as "non-outsourced servicer
    customers." With respect to these non-outsourced customers and the
    services the Company delivered pursuant to the servicing criteria set
    forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d)(4)(xi), the Company's assertion
    is strictly limited to its processing of tax payments submitted through
    the Company's tax payment service.

4.  With respect to servicing criteria set forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section
    1122(d)(4)(xii), the Company's assertion is strictly limited to its
    processing of property tax penalty payments. The Company has determined
    that its servicer customers may also have access to systems that enable
    those servicers to process penalties through obligor escrow accounts.
    Management's assessment of compliance does not relate to the actual or
    potential activities of other parties with access to obligor escrow
    accounts.

5.  Based on such assessment, management believes that, as of and for the
    year ended December 31, 2007, the Company has complied in all material
    respects with the Regulation AB Servicing Criteria related to the
    servicing of the Platform taken as a whole.

6.  The registered public accounting firm of Grant Thornton, LLP, has issued
    an attestation report on the Company's assessment of compliance with the
    Regulation AB Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended
    December 31, 2007.

Date: February 6, 2008

LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc.




By: /s/Robert Ige
   ---------------------------------
Name: Robert Ige
Its:  Executive Vice President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-5863

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LARRY MAYS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Elizabeth V. Hallanan,

District Judge. (CR-95-70)

Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jane Charnock, CHARNOCK & CHARNOCK, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, John C. Parr,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Mays pled guilty to four counts of distributing cocaine

base in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1981 & Supp. 1996),

and was sentenced to a term of 78 months imprisonment. Mays's only

contention in this appeal is that the sentencing court erred by

refusing to reduce his offense level based on acceptance of responsibility because of his continued drug use while on pretrial release. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual

§ 3E1.1(a) (Nov. 1994). It is undisputed that Mays submitted seven

positive urine screens for marijuana, one of which was also positive for cocaine use, during a period of approximately two months

while he was on pretrial release.

We find that the district court properly denied a reduction

for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1 based on Mays's

continued drug use following his arrest and prior to sentencing.

See United States v. Underwood, 970 F.2d 1336, 1338-39 (4th Cir.

1994). Moreover, Mays cites no authority for his position that his

continued drug use should be excused because of his addiction to

drugs, and we find such position lacking in merit. Accordingly, the

order of the district court is affirmed. 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
Sarah ADAMS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-7124.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
1

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK 

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT

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 

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO REMOVE 

INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 338

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document. ECF 

No. 338 (“Joint Motion”). Upon consideration of the Joint Motion and the papers submitted in 

support thereof, the motion is GRANTED.

The joint motion requested that the Court replace the incorrectly filed document. The 

parties are advised that the Clerk’s office does not replace documents. The correct version 

remains accessible as an attachment to the joint motion. ECF No. 338-1.

The Clerk is directed to remove the previously filed ECF No. 337-4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2018

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 341 Filed 11/20/18 Page 1 of 1
GREEN LIFE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & CONSUMER SERVICES, DIVISION OF LICENSING, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0817

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 08, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21551-21552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10708]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[AK-962-1410-00-P; AA-6687-A]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

    In accordance with Departmental regulation 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice 
is hereby given that a decision to issue conveyance under the 
provisions of Sec. 14(a) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 
December 18, 1971, 43 U.S.C. 1601, 1613(a), will be issued to Old 
Harbor Native Corporation for approximately 915 acres. The lands 
involved are in the vicinity of Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, 
Alaska.

Seward Meridian, Alaska

T. 34 S., R. 23 W.,
    Secs. 4, 8, 9, and 17.

    A notice of the decision will be published once a week, for four 
(4) consecutive weeks, in the Kodiak Daily [[Page 21552]] Mirror. 
Copies of the decision may be obtained by contacting the Alaska State 
Office of the Bureau of Land Management, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599 ((907) 271-5960).
    Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected 
by the decision, an agency of the Federal government or regional 
corporation, shall have until June 1, 1995 to file an appeal. However, 
parties receiving service by certified mail shall have 30 days from the 
date of receipt to file an appeal. Appeals must be filed in the Bureau 
of Land Management at the address identified above, where the 
requirements for filing an appeal may be obtained. Parties who do not 
file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, 
Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights.
Margaret J. McDaniel,
Acting Chief, Branch of Gulf Rim Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 95-10708 Filed 5-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P
Case 3:05-mj-70262-MAG Document 55 Filed 07/20/05 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:05-mj-70262-MAG Document 55 Filed 07/20/05 Page 2 of 2
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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ending January 31, 2008 of Easy ESL Publishing, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report"), I, Cameron Wong, Chairman, President 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:  1. The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.   /s/ Cameron Wong ---------------------------------- Cameron Wong  President, Secretary Treasurer, Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Sole Director   Date: March 25, 2008
Rachel WAGNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D19-1055

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 15 (Friday, January 24, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 8145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01702]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--The Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 15, 2024, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), The Institute of Electrical 
and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (``IEEE'') has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of 
business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature 
and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications 
were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting 
the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances.
    Specifically, 59 new standards have been initiated and 32 existing 
standards are being revised. More detail regarding these changes can be 
found at: https://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/sba/26sep2024/. The 
following pre-standards activities associated with IEEE Industry 
Connections Activities were launched or renewed: https://standards.ieee.org/about/bog/cag/approvals/october2024/.
    The following conformity assessment program associated with a 
published IEEE standard and supporting its promulgation was initiated: 
TSN 802.1: https://standards.ieee.org/products-programs/icap/time-sensitive-networking/.
    On September 17, 2004, the IEEE filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 1, 
2024. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on September 26, 2024 (89 FR 78902).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2025-01702 Filed 1-23-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
Case 4:17-cr-00091-JD Document 31 Filed 12/20/17 Page 1 of 14
Case 4:17-cr-00091-JD Document 31 Filed 12/20/17 Page 2 of 14
Case 4:17-cr-00091-JD Document 31 Filed 12/20/17 Page 3 of 14
Case 4:17-cr-00091-JD Document 31 Filed 12/20/17 Page 4 of 14
Case 4:17-cr-00091-JD Document 31 Filed 12/20/17 Page 5 of 14
Case 4:17-cr-00091-JD Document 31 Filed 12/20/17 Page 6 of 14
Case 4:17-cr-00091-JD Document 31 Filed 12/20/17 Page 7 of 14
Case 4:17-cr-00091-JD Document 31 Filed 12/20/17 Page 8 of 14
Case 4:17-cr-00091-JD Document 31 Filed 12/20/17 Page 9 of 14
Case 4:17-cr-00091-JD Document 31 Filed 12/20/17 Page 10 of 14
Case 4:17-cr-00091-JD Document 31 Filed 12/20/17 Page 11 of 14
Case 4:17-cr-00091-JD Document 31 Filed 12/20/17 Page 12 of 14
Case 4:17-cr-00091-JD Document 31 Filed 12/20/17 Page 13 of 14
Case 4:17-cr-00091-JD Document 31 Filed 12/20/17 Page 14 of 14
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 

 

JOHN A. INDIVERI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RICHARD MACK, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 17-00595 BLF (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

COMPEL; GRANTING MOTION TO 

STAY TIME TO OPPOSE 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(Docket Nos. 37 & 45) 

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical personnel at the Salinas Valley State Prison 

(“SVSP”) and the medical appeals office. The Court issued an order of service directing 

the Clerk to mail Requests for Waiver of Service of Summons upon Defendants Richard 

Mack, K. Kumar, Dr. D. Do-Williams, J. Dunlap, L. Gamboa, H. Hanter, and J. Lewis. 

(Docket No. 6.) After the Court ordered service but before Defendants appeared, Plaintiff 

filed a first amended complaint, (Docket No. 18, hereafter “FAC”), along with a motion to 

serve the complaint on Defendants, (Docket No. 19.) The Court screened the FAC and 

dismissed it with leave to amend to attempt to state sufficient facts against Defendants 

Health Care Services, the Department of Corrections, and specific individual(s) at the CTC 

Pharmacy. (Docket No. 36.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a second amended complaint, 
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 Californi

a

(Docket No. 38, hereafter “SAC”), followed by a motion for summary judgment, (Docket 

No. 41). Defendants filed a motion to screen the SAC and to stay time to oppose 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 45.) 

Considering that the SAC supersedes all previous complaint, Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel admissions based on the FAC, (Docket No. 37), is DENIED as moot. Defendants’ 

motion to stay time to oppose Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and for screening 

of the SAC is GRANTED. (Docket No. 45.) The Court shall conduct an initial screening 

of the SAC in a separate order. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 37 and 45. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order Denying Mot. to Compel; Grant Stay 

PRO-SE\HRL\CR.17\00595Indiveri_motion
Timothy James FORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-5138

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification







Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Xinyinhai Technology, Ltd. (the “Company”) certify that:




1.           The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




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







November 12, 2010
/s/ Tian LingTian Ling (Chief Executive Officer)/s/ Du SongDu Song (Chief Financial Officer)





---
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

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANGELA HUYNH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00745-HRL 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 

SETTLEMENT

Dkt. No. 25

The court having been informed that this case has settled, all previously scheduled 

deadlines and appearances are vacated.

On or before February 6, 2018, the parties shall file a stipulated dismissal pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 41(a). If a dismissal is not filed by the specified date, then the parties shall appear in 

Courtroom 2, 5th Floor of the United States District Court, 280 South First Street, San Jose, 

California on February 13, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. and show cause, if any, why the case should not be 

dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). Additionally, the parties shall file a statement in 

response to this Order to Show Cause no later than February 6, 2018, advising as to (1) the status 

of the activities of the parties in finalizing settlement; and (2) how much additional time, if any, is 

requested to finalize the settlement and file the dismissal. If a dismissal is filed as ordered, the 

Order to Show Cause hearing will be automatically vacated and the parties need not file a 

statement in response to this Order.
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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2017

Howard R. Lloyd

United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 233 Filed 11/23/22 Page 1 of 17
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 233 Filed 11/23/22 Page 2 of 17
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 233 Filed 11/23/22 Page 3 of 17
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 233 Filed 11/23/22 Page 4 of 17
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 233 Filed 11/23/22 Page 5 of 17
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 233 Filed 11/23/22 Page 6 of 17
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 233 Filed 11/23/22 Page 7 of 17
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 233 Filed 11/23/22 Page 8 of 17
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 233 Filed 11/23/22 Page 9 of 17
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 233 Filed 11/23/22 Page 10 of 17
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 233 Filed 11/23/22 Page 11 of 17
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 233 Filed 11/23/22 Page 12 of 17
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 233 Filed 11/23/22 Page 13 of 17
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 233 Filed 11/23/22 Page 14 of 17
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 233 Filed 11/23/22 Page 15 of 17
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 233 Filed 11/23/22 Page 16 of 17
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 233 Filed 11/23/22 Page 17 of 17