alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 88 (Monday, May 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 22585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11221]



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

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

[Docket No. AB-55 (Sub-No. 493X)]


CSX Transportation, Inc.--Abandonment Exemption--in Thomas 
County, GA

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce Commission.

ACTION: Notice of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10505, exempts from the 
prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903, et seq., the 
abandonment by CSX Transportation, Inc. of 1.51 miles of railroad in 
Metcalf, Thomas County, GA, subject to standard labor protective 
conditions and an environmental condition.

DATES: Provided no formal expression of intent to file a financial 
assistance offer has been received, this exemption will be effective on 
June 7, 1995. Formal expressions of intent to file financial assistance 
offers<SUP>1 under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2) must be filed by May 18, 1995. 
Petitions to stay must be filed by May 23, 1995. Requests for a public 
use condition must be filed by May 30, 1995. Petitions to reopen must 
be filed by June 2, 1995.

    \1\ See Exempt. of Rail Abandonment--Offers of Finan. Assist., 4 
I.C.C.2d 164 (1987).

ADDRESSES: Send pleadings referring to Docket No. AB-55 (Sub-No. 493X) 
to: (1) Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, Interstate 
Commerce Commission, 1201 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 
20423; and (2) Petitioner's representative: Charles M. Rosenberger, 500 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Street--J150, Jacksonville, FL 32202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 927-5660. 
(TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Commission's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write 
to, call, or pick up in person from: Dynamic Concepts, Inc., Interstate 
Commerce Commission Building, 1201 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room 2229, 
Washington, DC 20423. Telephone: (202) 289-4357/4359. [Assistance for 
the hearing impaired is available through TDD services (202) 927-5721.]

    Decided: April 25, 1995.

    By the Commission, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Owen, and 
Commissioners Simmons and McDonald.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11221 Filed 5-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
---

Exhibit 99.13


CONSENT OF EXPERT To:

   United States Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, D.C. 20549Alberta Securities CommissionBritish Columbia Securities CommissionOntario Securities CommissionRio Alto Mining Limited
 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Technical report entitled “La Arena Project, Peru”, effective December 31st, 2013 (the “Report” prepared for Rio Alto Mining Limited (the “Company") I, Marek Mroczek, do hereby confirm that I am a qualified person under National Instrument 43-101 and a co-author of the Report. The undersigned, for himself, pursuant to Section 8.3 of National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects confirms thatthis letter is being filed as the consent to the use of extracts from, or summaries of, the Report in the Company's Annual Information Form for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 (the "AIF") and to being named in the AIF. The undersigned further acknowledges that the AIF will be filed as an Exhibit to the Company's Annual Report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 (the "Form 40-F") and consents to being named in the Form 40-F and authorize the use of the information represented therein relating to the Report.  DATED the 28th day of March 2014 By:

   /s/ Mr. Marek MroczekName: Mr. Marek Mroczek, P.Eng.,Company: Mining Plus Canada Consulting Ltd.Title: Senior Mining/Geology Consultant


---
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21523-21524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10722]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

First Bancorp, Inc., et al.; Formations of; Acquisitions by; and 
Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied for the Board's 
approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842) and Sec.  225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) to 
become a bank holding company or to acquire a bank or bank holding 
company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications 
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Each application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank or to the offices of the Board of 
Governors. Any comment on an application that requests a hearing must 
include a statement of why a written presentation would not suffice in 
lieu of a hearing, identifying specifically any questions of fact that 
are in dispute and summarizing the evidence that would be presented at 
a hearing.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received not later than May 26, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Lloyd W. Bostian, Jr., Senior 
Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261:
    1. First Bancorp, Inc., Lebanon, Virginia; to acquire 100 percent 
of the voting shares of First Bank and Trust of Tennessee, Johnson 
City, Tennessee, a de novo bank.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice 
President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166:
    1. CNB Bancshares, Inc., Evansville, Indiana; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of Bank of Illinois, National Association, 
Mount Vernon, Illinois. Applicant proposes to cause its existing 
federal savings bank subsidiary, King County Federal Savings Bank, 
Mount Vernon, Illinois, to convert to a [[Page 21524]] national banking 
association, under the name of Citizens Bank of Illinois.
    2. Mercantile Bancorporation, Inc. St. Louis, Missouri; to acquire 
100 percent of the voting shares of Amerifirst Bancorporation, Inc., 
Sikeston, Missouri.
    C. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Genie D. Short, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Baylor Bancshares, Inc., Seymour, Texas, and Baylor/Delaware 
Corp., Wilmington, Delaware; to acquire 100 percent of the voting 
shares of Memphis State Bank, Memphis, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 26, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-10722 Filed 5-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
ASPEX EYEWEAR, INC., et al., petitioners, v. ALTAIR EYEWEAR, INC.

No. 12-1120.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
ORDER — No. 17-cr-00083-MMC-1

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 Francisco Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RYAN PATACSIL,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cr-00083-MMC-1 (LB)

DETENTION ORDER

For the reasons stated on the record at the detention hearing, and based on this record 

(including the charges, the government’s proffer, the bail study, and other information presented at 

the hearing), the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Patascil presents a 

serious risk of flight and by clear and convincing evidence that he is a danger to the community. 

Again based on this record, the court cannot mitigate the risks through any conditions currently 

available to it. The court thus orders Mr. Patiscal detained pending trial but without prejudice to 

reconsideration at a later date. 

Accordingly, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ' 3142(i), the court orders the following:

(1) The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a 

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences 

or being held in custody pending appeal;

(2) The defendant must be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with his 

Case 3:17-cr-00083-MMC Document 11 Filed 02/17/17 Page 1 of 2
ORDER — No.17-cr-00083-MMC-1 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

counsel; and 

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the government, 

the person in charge of the corrections facility in which the defendant is confined shall deliver the 

defendant to an authorized Deputy United States Marshal for the purpose of any appearance in 

connection with a court proceeding.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2017

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cr-00083-MMC Document 11 Filed 02/17/17 Page 2 of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT RUSSELL DREW,

Plaintiff,

v.

AVALON BAY COMMUNITIES INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00846-DMR 

AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

On February 21, 2017, Pro se Plaintiff Robert Russell Drew (“Plaintiff”) filed suit in this 

Court. [Docket No. 1]. Plaintiff has failed to comply with a number of case-management 

deadlines. For example, Plaintiff has yet to serve the summons and complaint, even though the 

court reminded him of the service requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 

[Docket No. 12]. Additionally, Plaintiff has twice failed to submit the required Case Management 

Conference Statement. [Docket Nos. 11, 12]. Plaintiff also failed to appear at the July 5, 2017 

Initial Case Management Conference. [Docket No. 13]. 

In light of the above, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to respond in writing by July 13, 2017

and explain why his case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

Failure to timely respond may result in dismissal of this action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2017

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu U

United States Magistrate Judge

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu
Jason David COOPER, petitioner, v. Tom GRAMIAK, Warden.

No. 12-8635.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
子宮筋腫

子宮筋腫とは?

子宮筋腫は出産適齢期の女性に最もよくみられる、良

性の(がんではない)腫瘍です。子宮(子宮体部)の

筋肉壁の中やその周囲で成長し、単一の腫瘍として成

長することもあれば、複数の腫瘍ができることもあり

ます。子宮筋腫はリンゴの種のように小さいものか

ら、グレープフルーツのように大きくなるものまであ

ります。子宮筋腫は時間とともに大きくなることもあ

れば、ほぼ同じ大きさのまま変わらない場合もありま

す。子宮筋腫は別の医学用語で平滑筋腫と呼ばれるこ

ともあり、または単に「筋腫」と呼ばれることもあり

ます。

子宮筋腫の症状は?

子宮筋腫は、必ずしも症状を引き起こすとは限りませ

ん。子宮筋腫の症状がある人は、子宮筋腫を持ちなが

ら生活するのがつらいと感じるかもしれません。子宮

筋腫の症状には、以下のようなものがあります:

• 月経(生理)の変化

o

o

o

生理中の出血量が多く、1時間ごと、または

もっと頻繁にタンポンやパッドを取り替えな

いといけなかったり、出血が7日以上続いた

りする

生理と生理の間にも、膣から出血する

大量で不規則な出血は、貧血(赤血球数の低

下)を引き起こす可能性がある

o 重度の生理痛

• 膨満感または圧迫感

o 下腹部に「膨満感」を感じる

o 尿意を感じる回数が増える、または尿が出に

くくなる

• 痛み

o セックス中の痛み

o お腹や腰の痛み

• 生殖器系への影響

o 不妊症

o 流産

o 早産

子宮筋腫の原因は?

何が子宮筋腫の原因なのか、はっきりしたことは誰

にもわかりません。研究者たちは、複数の要因が関

係していると考えています。これらの要因には、以

下のようなものが含まれます:

• 年齢。子宮筋腫のリスクは年齢とともに増加し、50

歳前後でピークに達します。閉経後に筋腫が縮小す

る女性もいます

• 家族の病歴または遺伝。 家族(母親、姉妹、叔母な

ど)に子宮筋腫の人がいると、リスクが高まりま

す。

• 人種/民族的起源。 子宮筋腫はアジア系、ヒスパ

ニック系、白人よりも、アフリカ系アメリカ人に2~

3倍多く見られます。また、アフリカ系アメリカ人は

子宮筋腫になる年齢が若く、筋腫の成長も早い傾向

があります。

• 体重。 体重が重かったり肥満の女性は、子宮筋腫の

リスクが高まります。

• ホルモン。 子宮筋腫は、エストロゲンとプロゲステ

ロンというホルモンのレベルに影響されることがあ

ります。

• 高血圧 は、子宮筋腫のリスクを高めます。

• 食事要因。(例:ビタミンDの欠乏、豆乳を摂取す

る。)

子宮筋腫があるかどう

かは、どうすればわか

りますか?

症状がなければ、子宮筋腫があるかどうか、自分自身

ではわからないかもしれません。場合によっては、医

療従事者が定期的な内診検査で子宮筋腫を見つけるこ

ともありますつけることもあります。子宮筋腫の画像

を見るために、医師が画像検査を指示することもあり

ます。手術(子宮鏡検査)で子宮筋腫の超音波診断を

確認し、筋腫の位置などの追加情報を知ることができ

ます。

FDA 婦人保健部

www.fda.gov/womens
子宮筋腫は、どのよう

に治療するのですか?

症状があれば、それを改善するための治療法が

あります。筋腫を治療する最良の方法について

は、医療提供者と相談してください。医療提供

者は、さまざまな要素を検討します:

• あなたの症状と、その重度

• 将来、妊娠を望むかどうか

• 筋腫の大きさ

• 筋腫の位置

• あなたの年齢と、閉経年齢にどのくらい近いか

子宮筋腫があっても症状がなければ、医学的介入

は必要ないかもしれません。医師は定期的な検査

で筋腫が大きくなっているかどうかを確認し、あ

なたに新たな症状や症状悪化に気づいたかどうか

を尋ねることができます。筋腫の成長や変化を確

認するために、医師から画像検査を勧められるこ

とがあります。

以下のような症状に対処するのに薬を服用すべき

かどうか、かかりつけの医師に相談してくださ

い:

• 大量出血による貧血(赤血球数の低下)を治療

または予防するための、鉄剤。

• 便秘を改善するための、便軟化剤。

• 子宮筋腫による痛みを和らげるための、市販薬

(OTC)または処方鎮痛薬。

医師は出血を抑えるために、ホルモン剤

による内科的治療を勧めることがありま

す。これには、以下が含まれます:

• ピル、パッチ、膣避妊リングなどの避妊薬や避

妊製品

• プロゲステロンの錠剤または注射

• ホルモン(プロゲステロン)入り子宮内避妊具

(IUD)

• 子宮筋腫の閉経前女性に伴う生理中の多量出血

を管理するために承認された、新薬。

治療を開始または中止する前に、リ

スク、利点、副作用についてかかり

つけの医師に相談しましょう。

子宮筋腫による症状が中等度または重度の場合、

医師は前述のような内科的治療や外科的処置を勧

めることがあります。手術の選択肢には、以下の

ようなものがあります:

• 子宮筋腫核出術 – 子宮の健康な組織を切除せずに

筋腫を取り除く手術。

• 子宮全摘出術 – 子宮全体を摘出する手術。

• 筋腫焼灼術 – 正常な子宮組織への損傷を避けなが

ら、エネルギーを使って筋腫組織を破壊する手

術。筋腫は摘出されませんが、縮小します。

• 子宮筋腫塞栓術(UFE)または子宮動脈塞栓術

(UAE)– 子宮筋腫に血液を供給する血管に、細

いチューブを通します。その後、小さなプラス

チックやゲルの粒子を血管に注入します。これに

より、筋腫への血液供給が遮断され、筋腫が縮小

します。

医療提供者とすべての治療法の選択肢

とそのリスクと利点について、充分に

話し合ってください。医療提供者は あ

なたの質問にすべてお答えし、どの治

療法があなたに適しているかを一緒に

決めることができます。

このファクトシートは、FDA 婦人保健部に

よって作成されました。この情報は教育目的

であり、すべてを網羅するものではなく、医

療提供者と相談する代わりとして使用するこ

とは、しないでください。

子宮筋腫についてもっ

と知りたい方は、こち

らをご覧ください:

www.fda.gov/uterinefibroids

子宮筋腫 (JAPANESE) JUNE 2022
J ONATHAN A. P ATCHEN

ATTORNEY

jpatchen@taylorpatchen.com 

TAYLOR & PATCHEN, LLP

ONE FERRY BUILDING, SUITE 355, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 T 415.788.8200 F 415.788.8208 

August 21, 2017 

Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

Courtroom F - 15th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Re: Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

Lior Ron’s Unopposed Request for Leave to Move for Reconsideration of Dkt. 1287 

Dear Judge Corley: 

We write to ask for leave to file, if necessary, a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 

August 21, 2017 Order denying the stipulated request to take Mr. Lior Ron’s deposition 

after August 24, 2017. (Dkt. 1287). We raised this issue with counsel for the parties and the 

Special Master on a telephone call at 2 PM today, and the parties confirmed that they have 

no objection to this request. 

The Court granted the stipulated request as to Mr. Kalanick because he had “already been 

deposed once.” (Dkt. 1287 at 1:18). But the Court denied the stipulated request as to “Mr. 

Lior [sic] . . . as much of [his] deposition[] can be completed without the Stroz Report and 

[he is an] important witness.” Id.

We are concerned that the Court, in denying the stipulated request as to Mr. Ron, may not 

have been aware that Mr. Ron—like Mr. Kalanick—has already given a full deposition in 

this matter. In particular, Mr. Ron was deposed on June 19, 2017, for a full day (9 AM to 7 

PM), resulting in a deposition transcript of 309 pages in length. Mr. Ron, in other words, 

has “already been deposed once.” 

Whether a witness had already been deposed appears to have been a material consideration 

in the Court’s decision on the stipulated request. Although Mr. Ron exercised reasonable

diligence in reviewing and consenting to the stipulation over the weekend, he was unaware

that the fact of a prior deposition was material to the Court’s consideration. Had he been so 

aware, he would have included that fact in the stipulated request. Therefore, there are 

grounds for reconsideration here. See CivLO L.R. 7-9(b)(1).

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1295 Filed 08/22/17 Page 1 of 2
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley 

August 21, 2017 

Page 2 

TAYLOR & PATCHEN, LLP

ONE FERRY BUILDING, SUITE 355, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 T 415.788.8200 F 415.788.8208 

Based on the foregoing, Mr. Ron respectfully requests that the Court grant leave for Mr. Ron 

to file a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9. Alternatively, because 

Mr. Ron’s request for reconsideration is not objected to by any party, Mr. Ron requests that 

the Court directly reconsider its order denying the stipulated request as to Mr. Ron. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Jonathan A. Patchen

Jonathan A. Patchen 

cc: Counsel of record (via ECF); Special Master John Cooper 

Dated: August 22, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

GRANTED

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1295 Filed 08/22/17 Page 2 of 2
Timothy Nelson BUTLER, petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

No. 12-5383.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

DEC 11 2002

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MAXIMO HERNANDEZ, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

F. WHITTEN PETERS, Secretary of the

Air Force, in his official capacity;

COLONEL GARY D. DILLS, ex 377th

ABW Wing Commander, in his official

and individual capacities; COLONEL

POLLY PEYER, ex 377th ABW Wing

Commander, in her official and individual

capacities; COLONEL JAN D. EAKLE,

current 377th ABW Wing Commander, in

her official capacity; and GEORGE P.

ELDER, Staff Attorney, in his official and

individual capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 01-2370

D.C. No. CIV-00-1312 PK/LFG

(D. New Mexico)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before MURPHY, BALDOCK, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
1

 Hernandez also asserts the district court erred by (1) placing the case on

administrative track and not permitting him an opportunity to conduct discovery; and (2)

considering a copy of a letter from Defendant Dills without first verifying its authenticity. 

Hernandez failed to raise either issue before the district court and is not entitled to assert

these arguments for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Botefuhr, 309 F.3d

1263, 1279 (10th Cir. 2002).

-2-

Plaintiff Maximo Hernandez, Jr. appeals the district court’s grant of Defendants’

motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1291. The parties to this case are familiar with its facts and procedural history,

and we will not repeat them here. This court reviews de novo a district court's dismissal

of a complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See McDonald v. Kinder-Morgan,

Inc., 287 F.3d 992, 997 (10th Cir. 2002). We will affirm a dismissal “only when it

appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claims that would

entitle the plaintiff to relief.” Id. We accept all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint

as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. On appeal,

Hernandez asserts the trial court erred in dismissing his Title VII claims for lack of

jurisdiction and his remaining claims for failure to state a claim on which relief could be

granted.1 The district court memorandum and order set forth a detailed explanation of the 
-3-

grounds for dismissal. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. 

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES'

RETIREMENT BOARD,

Petitioner

v.

RAYMOND J. WHALEN,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 671 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10 th day of May, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED . The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Did the Commonwealth Court abuse its discretion and depart from accepted judicial practices in holding that parties to a private settlement agreement may dictate what constitutes “compensation” under the Public School Employees’ Retirement Code (“Retirement Code”) , 24 Pa.C.S. § 8101 et seq.?

(2) D id the Commonwealth Court apply the wrong standard of review to the Public School Employees’ Retirement Board’s adjudication by not affording the appropriate deference to the Board’s interpretation of the elements necessary t o establish a settlement payment as “compensation” under the Retirement Code?
United States District C

ourt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

REQUEST FOR BRIEFING RE

ARBITRATION AGAINST

LEVANDOWSKI

In the briefing yet to come on the arbitration issue, please state how far along the

arbitration brought by Waymo LLC against Anthony Levandowski has progressed and the extent

to which (and when) the arbitration will determine which of the 14,000-plus allegedly

downloaded files qualify as trade secrets. If the arbitration will resolve that issue, please include

analysis in the briefing as to whether, after deciding the issue of provisional relief, this Court

should stay this case as to the trade secrets claims until those claims are resolved in the

Levandowski arbitration. If the arbitration will not reach that issue, please explain why. 

Dated: April 9, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 194 Filed 04/09/17 Page 1 of 1
我本应呆在家里

我醒来后感觉不舒服。同时出现腹泻等生 我只想回家躺在床上,但是由于开销太 我仍然坚持打卡上班。我确定我看上去很糟

病的症状。 大,我没办法请病假。 糕。我也知道我不应该去上班。

食物订单堆成了一座山,于是我立即开始准备 卡洛斯正和他的家人共度美好时光。这是他最喜 食物上桌后,他迅速吃完了他的那份

汉堡。 欢的餐厅。 汉堡,外加他妹妹的那份。

那天晚上,卡洛斯胃疼的十分厉害。他病的很严 后来得知我生病时做的食物导致其他33 我当初就应该做出正确决定,好好待在家中休息,就可

重,之后被送到了急诊室。 名顾客中毒。卫生部门勒令餐厅关闭。 以避免这一切不幸事件发生。因为餐厅暂时歇业,我没

了收入。我真的感到相当惭愧。

维护众人健康。如果生病请待在家里。
ASPHALT MILLING SERVICES, INC., Appellant, v. PATRICK'S CUSTOM PAINTING, INC. and Certified Diesel Repair, Inc., Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-2990

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.