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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 111 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 111

Providing for certain procedures for bringing debate to a close on any 
  question in the House of Representatives and Senate, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 11, 2024

  Ms. Porter submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                   referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for certain procedures for bringing debate to a close on any 
  question in the House of Representatives and Senate, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This resolution may be cited as the ``Majority Rule Resolution''.

SEC. 2. PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives or the Standing Rules of the Senate, the House 
of Representatives and the Senate may not require that more than a 
majority of the Members of either House of Congress voting, a quorum 
being present, is required to bring debate to a close on any question 
in such House.
    (b) Rules of House of Representatives and Senate.--This section is 
enacted by Congress--
            (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
        and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such is 
        deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but 
        applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in 
        that House in the case of the bill or joint resolution 
        involved, and supersede other rules only to the extent that it 
        is inconsistent with such rules; and
            (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
        either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
        procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and 
        to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that 
        House.
                                 <all>
```
United States District Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

JAMES ALVIN DULANEY, No. 5:17-CV-00664 EJD (RMI)

Plaintiff, ORDER AND WRIT OF HABEAS

v. CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM

ELMANI, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

It is hereby ordered that the Clerk of the Court issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum for the

person of JAMES ALVIN DULANEY, JR., CDCR No. P40910, presently in custody at Pelican Bay

State Prison, as the presence of said witness will be necessary at proceedings in the above-entitled cause

and thereafter as may be required.

Dated: May 17, 2018 _____________________________

ROBERT M. ILLMAN

United States Magistrate Judge

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

TO: Warden, Pelican Bay State Prison

GREETINGS

WE COMMAND that you have and produce the body of JAMES ALVIN DULANEY, JR., CDCR No.

P40910, in your custody in the hereinabove-mentioned institution, before the United States District

Court at the Federal Courthouse at 3140 Boeing Avenue, in McKinleyville, at 10:00 a.m. on May 31,

2018, in order that said prisoner may then and there participate in the SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
United States District Court

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

2

in the matter of Dulaney v. Elmani, et al, and at the termination of said hearing return him forthwith

to said hereinabove-mentioned institution, or abide by such order of the above-entitled Court as shall

thereafter be made concerning the custody of said prisoner, and further to produce said prisoner at all

times necessary until the termination of the proceedings for which his testimony is required in this

Court;

Witness the Honorable Robert M. Illman, Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California.

Dated: May 17, 2018

SUSAN Y. SONG

CLERK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

By: Linn Van Meter

 Administrative Law Clerk

Dated: May 17, 2018 _____________________________

ROBERT M. ILLMAN

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

 Judge Robert M. Illman
GOVT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 

NO. 17-CR-0068 EJD 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 

DAVID L. ANDERSON (CABN 149604) 

United States Attorney 

HALLIE HOFFMAN (CABN 210020) 

Chief, Criminal Division 

KAREN KREUZKAMP (CABN 246151) 

STEPHEN MEYER (CABN 263954) 

Assistant United States Attorneys 

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 

San Francisco, California 94102-3495 

Telephone: (415) 436-7014 

FAX: (415) 436-7234 

Karen.Kreuzkamp@usdoj.gov 

Stephen.Meyer@usdoj.gov

 

Attorneys for the United States of America 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v. 

JOSE DAVID ABREGO-GALDAMEZ, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

NO. 17-CR-0068 EJD 

GOVERNMENT’S 

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 

Sentencing Date: September 16, 2019 

Time: 1:30 p.m. 

The government respectfully submits this sentencing memorandum to request that the 

Court sentence defendant Jose David Abrego-Galdamez to 36 months of imprisonment, which 

should be imposed to run consecutively to the sentence imposed in 15-CR-00567 (BLF), 

followed by a three-year term of supervised release and a $100 special assessment. This 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 5:17-cr-00068-EJD Document 259 Filed 09/09/19 Page 1 of 2
GOVT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 

NO. 17-CR-0068 EJD 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 

recommendation is consistent with the parties’ plea agreement, which considered the unique 

litigation risks to both parties based on the prior plea agreement. 

Dated: September 9, 2019 

 DAVID L. ANDERSON 

 United States Attorney 

 /s/ 

 STEPHEN MEYER 

 KAREN KREUZKAMP 

 Assistant United States Attorneys 

Case 5:17-cr-00068-EJD Document 259 Filed 09/09/19 Page 2 of 2
Anthony G. PETRELLO, petitioner, v. Matthew W. PRUCKA, et al.

No. 12-708.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

*1724Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Food and Drug Administration/ Advisory Committee Oversight and Management Staff

EXPECTATIONS OF CONSUMER REPRESENTATIVES SERVING ON FDA 

ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND PANELS

 

 Attend scheduled meeting of the full committee or panel as appropriate, and 

subcommittee meeting for which you are a member. If voting member misses an 

excessive number of meetings so that their absence impairs the effectiveness of

the committee, this may be grounds for terminating the membership. Plan to 

attend the entire meeting and not leave early, if possible. 

 Notify the Designated Federal Officer, well in advance, of any change in personal 

schedule which may prevent all or partial attendance at a scheduled meeting. 

 Review any required material received prior to an upcoming committee meeting 

to allow for an effective and comprehensive discussion on the subject at the 

meeting. 

 Be prepared to discuss and comment on all issues brought before the committee and 

to ask questions of the presenters or applicants during the meeting from a consumer 

perspective. 

 Represent the consumer perspective on issues and actions that come before the 

committee. 

 Represent and serve as a liaison between the committee and interested consumers, 

associations, coalitions and consumer organizations. 

 Establish a link to the diverse constituencies served by FDA and to represent the 

perspectives of those groups on issues and actions that come before the committee. 

 If required, vote on issues discussed and recommendations made by the 

committee. 

 Contact the FDA Advisory Committee Oversight and Management Staff for help 

regarding any aspect of your role as a consumer representative. The Advisory 

Committee Oversight and Management Staff will provide the support that you 

need to be an effective consumer voice on the advisory committees. 

 Please keep in touch with the Advisory Committee Oversight and Management 

Staff. We appreciate feedback regarding your advisory committee experiences.
P/NP: Present, Not Present

 C/NC: Custody, Not in Custody 

 I: Interpreter 

Adriana M. Kratzmann

Courtroom Deputy

Original: Efiled 

CC: 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRIMINAL MINUTES

Date: September 17, 2019 Time: 10:04-10:27 am

Total Time: 23 Mins.

Judge: Edward J. Davila

Case No.: 17-cr-00068-EJD8Case Name: UNITED STATES v. Gerber Morales(P)(C)(I)

Attorney for Plaintiff: Stephen Meyer

Attorney for Defendant: Carleen Arlidge

Deputy Clerk: Adriana M. Kratzmann Court Reporter: Irene Rodriguez

Interpreter: Lupita Arce(Spanish) Probation Officer: Robert Tenney (for Kyle Pollak)

PROCEEDINGS - SENTENCING

Defendant is present and in-custody assisted by the Spanish language interpreter. Hearing held.

Defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to be imprisoned 

for a term of 72 months. This term consists of 72 months on each of Cts. 1 and 3 of the Second 

Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 147 filed 8/16/2018) said term to be served concurrent to one 

another. 

The Court imposed a 5-year term of supervised release. Said term consists of 5 years on each of 

Cts. 1 and 2, said term shall run concurrently to one another if the defendant is not deported. The 

Court adopts the Probation Officer’s recommendations for standard and special conditions (SEE 

JUDGMENT).

The Court orders defendant’s interest forfeited as to the forfeiture items and the Government shall 

submit an order to the Court.

$200 Special Assessment Fee imposed due immediately; Fine waived;

Defendant is remanded to the custody of the BOP;

The Court makes the following recommendations to the BOP: 1) that the defendant be designated to a 

facility as close to the Santa Cruz, California where the defendant’s family resides. The Court finds that 

family visitation enhances rehabilitation; and 2) to the extent possible that the defendant receive 

rehabilitation services to include counseling for PTSD and substance abuse and services to complete 

GED. The Government orally requests that the Court dismiss the underlying Counts in the previous 

Indictment. The Court ordered those Indictments dismissed as to this defendant.

Case 5:17-cr-00068-EJD Document 267 Filed 09/17/19 Page 1 of 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

ROBERT RUSSELL DREW,

Plaintiff,

v.

AVALON BAY COMMUNITIES INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00846-DMR 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE

On July 6, 2017, the court issued an Order to Show Cause, instructing Plaintiff Robert 

Russell Drew to submit a written statement by no later than July 13, 2017 explaining Plaintiff’s 

failure to comply with case management deadlines, failure to serve the summons and complaint, 

and failure to appear at the July 5, 2017 initial case management conference. [Docket No. 15.] 

The Order to Show Cause stated that failure to respond by July 13, 2017 may result in dismissal of 

this action. Plaintiff did not respond to the Order to Show Cause. Accordingly, this matter is 

hereby dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2017

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:17-cv-00846-DMR Document 16 Filed 07/19/17 Page 1 of 1
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 4469** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v.
BILL ALLEN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. ( 5:13

- cr - 00147

- D

- 1 )

Submitted : December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Thomas P
. McNamara, Federal Public Defender , Eric J
. Brignac , Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G
. Walker , United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Yvonne V . Watford

- McKinney , Assistant U n ited S tates Attorney s, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bill Allen pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to two counts of arson within the special maritime and territo rial jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 7(3), 81 ( 2012 ). The district court sentenced Allen to concurrent terms of thirty months’ imprisonment, the bottom of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Allen timely appeals,
arg uing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable, because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the purposes of 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness, using “a deferential abuse

- of

- discretion standard.” Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Because Allen asserts no procedural error, we consider whether the sentence is substantively reasonable, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances” and giving due deference to the district

cour t’s decision. Id. We presume that a sentence “within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is [substantively] reasonable.” United States v. Louthian , 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014 ). Allen bears the burden to rebut this presumption “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.3 Here, the district court reasonably determined that a sentence of thirty months, at the low end of the Guidelines
range, was appropr iate based on its individualized assessment of Allen’s case in light of his arguments and the § 3553(a) factors. Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Michael C. TIERNEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

No. 12-5382.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
United States District Court

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

REFERRAL FOR MEDIATION

WITH JUDGE LAPORTE

This case is immediately REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte for

MEDIATION. Judge Laporte will contact both sides to arrange a conference. Please do not use

this referral as an excuse for failing to comply with case obligations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 146 Filed 04/04/17 Page 1 of 1
1

SD Biosensor, Inc.: Pilot COVID-19 At-Home Test

12-month to 16-month shelf-life extension granted by the FDA on December 11, 2023

Lot Number

Tests with this printed 

expiration date

(Year-month-day)

Now have this extended 

expiration date

(Year-month-day)

53K3AS1AC1 2023-10-17 2024-02-17

53K3CN1T11 2023-11-03 2024-03-03

53K3CN3T11, 53K3CP2T11, 53K3CP1T11, 

53K3CS1T11, 53K3CS2T11, 53K3CT1T11, 

53K3CU1T11, 53K3CU2T11, 53K4121T11, 

53K4122T11, 53K4132T11, 53K4131T11, 

53K4133T11, 53K4141T11, 53K4151T11

2023-12-08 2024-04-08

53K4152T11, 53K4161T11, 53K4162T11, 

53K4164T11, 53K4163T11, 53K41A1T11, 

53K41A2T11, 53K41A3T11, 53K41A4T11, 

53K41B1T11, 53K41B2T11

2023-12-12 2024-04-12

53K41B3T11, 53K41C1T11, 53K41C2T11, 

53K41C3T11, 53K41D1T11, 53K41D2T11, 

53K41D3T11, 53K41G3T11, 53K41G1T11, 

53K41G2T11, 53K41G4T11, 53K41H1T11, 

53K41H2T11, 53K41H3T11, 53K41J4T11, 

53K41J5T11, 53K41J1T11, 53K41J2T11, 

53K41J3T11

2023-12-13 2024-04-13

53K41J6T11, 53K41K5T11, 53K41K4T11, 

53K41K3T11, 53K41K2T11, 53K41K1T11, 

53K41L2T11, 53K41L1T11, 53K41R3T11, 

53K41R2T11, 53K41R1T11, 53K41S3T11, 

53K41S2T11, 53K41S1T11, 53K41S4T11, 

53K41S5T11, 53K41S6T11, 53K41T1T11, 

53K41T2T11, 53K41T3T11, 53K41T4T11

2023-12-14 2024-04-14
Dorothy Williams ELLIOTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2204

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO REMOVE DOCUMENTS

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

sf-3755783 

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 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS UBER 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC, AND OTTO 

TRUCKING LLC’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

REMOVE DOCUMENTS 

Trial Date: October 2, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 355 Filed 05/04/17 Page 1 of 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO REMOVE DOCUMENTS

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 1

sf-3755783 

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 

Having reviewed and considered Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Ottomotto LLC, 

and Otto Trucking LLC’s Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document, Docket No. 177-6, 

which Defendants filed on April 7, 2017, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion shall be granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________, 2017 

HONORABLE WILLIAM ALSUP 

United States District Court Judge 

May 4

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 355 Filed 05/04/17 Page 2 of 2
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1348 

To provide for nuclear disarmament and economic conversion in accordance 

with District of Columbia Initiative Measure Number 37 of 1992. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2005 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for nuclear disarmament and economic conversion 

in accordance with District of Columbia Initiative Measure Number 37 of 1992. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Nuclear Disarmament 

5 and Economic Conversion Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AND 

7 ECONOMIC CONVERSION. 

8 The United States Government shall— 
2 

•HR 1348 IH 

1 (1) disable and dismantle all its nuclear weap2 ons and refrain from replacing them at any time 

3 with any weapons of mass destruction; 

4 (2) redirect resources that are currently being 

5 used for nuclear weapons programs to use— 

6 (A) in converting all nuclear weapons in7 dustry employees, processes, plants, and pro8 grams smoothly to constructive, ecologically 

9 beneficial peacetime activities during the 3 

10 years following the effective date of this Act, 

11 and 

12 (B) in addressing human and infrastruc13 ture needs such as housing, health care, edu14 cation, agriculture, and environmental restora15 tion, including alternative fuel sources; 

16 (3) undertake vigorous good faith efforts to 

17 eliminate war, armed conflict, and all military oper18 ations; and 

19 (4) actively promote policies to induce all other 

20 countries to join in these commitments for world 

21 peace and security. 

22 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

23 This Act shall take effect when the President certifies 

24 to the Congress that all foreign countries possessing nu25 clear weapons have established legal requirements com-
3 

•HR 1348 IH 

1 parable to those set forth in section 2 and those require2 ments have taken effect. 

Æ
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

LAFRANCE BEAL,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM MUNIZ,

Respondent.

Case No. 17-cv-0428-TEH 

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the order of dismissal signed today, a judgment 

of dismissal without prejudice is entered against Petitioner. 

Petitioner shall obtain no relief by way of his petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/28/2017

________________________

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.17\Beal0428.jud.docx

Case 3:17-cv-00428-TEH Document 5 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 1
David Scott HASTINGS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Elaine L. SIRT-HASTINGS, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2963

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
¿Una ensalada cómo para morirse?

Un día, estaba haciendo dos cosas a la vez. Prepare la carne...

... y luego corté la lechuga usando la misma tabla de cortar sin haberla lavado y desinfectado de forma apropiada. 

Por no lavar, enjuagar ni desinfectar mi tabla de cortar, 20 clientes se enfermaron violentamente, una persona murió y nuestro restaurante cerró.

Protege a todos. Siempre lave, enjuague y desinfecte el equipo y los utensilios entre usos.
November 3, 2011



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RMS RESIDENTIAL PROP ERTIES, LLC, ASSIGNE E OF ENCORE CREDIT CORPORATION , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00232

- CV V.

A. M. MOLINA AKA ARL ETTA MOLINA , Appellee

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, A. M. MOLINA
AKA ARLETTA MOLINA , signed August 19, 2010, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore order the judgment of the court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for proceedings in accordance with the court's opinion.

We order appellee, A. M. MOLINA AKA ARL ETTA MOLINA , to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for obs ervance.
Erica Nicole POWELL, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-6905.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.