alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(1). 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1288 Filed 08/21/17 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 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1288 Filed 08/21/17 Page 2 of 2
Antwoine GREEN, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 12-8914.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office, denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2170

MICHAEL LAMONT MOORE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL MORGAN; ANDREW WHITLEY; MELISSA BISETTE; ROBERT 

EVANS; BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC; WILSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE; 

SHERIFF CALVIN WOODARD, Sheriff, Wilson County; DERRICK CREECH, 

City Councilmen; SUSAN K. FARFOUR; CARDINAL GROUP,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:16-cv-00244-FL)

Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 3, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Lamont Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Marc Presel, Jolee M. Wortham, 

BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Lamont Moore appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Moore v. 

Morgan, No. 5:16-cv-00244-FL (E.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2016). 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
Martyn Scott WOLFE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9363.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 122 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 122

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
  participate in the Eastern Municipal Water District Recycled Water 
              System Pressurization and Expansion Project.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Eastern Municipal Water District 
Recycled Water System Pressurization and Expansion Project''

SEC. 2. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.

    (a) In General.--The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 
and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et 
seq.) is amended by adding after section 16__ the following:

``SEC. 16__. EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM 
              PRESSURIZATION AND EXPANSION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA.

    ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
Eastern Municipal Water District, California, may participate in the 
design, planning, and construction of permanent facilities needed to 
establish operational pressure zones that will be used to provide 
recycled water in the district.
    ``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the project 
described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 percent of the total 
cost of the project.
    ``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall not be 
used for operation or maintenance of the project described in 
subsection (a).
    ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $12,000,000.
    ``(e) Sunset of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary to carry 
out any provisions of this section shall terminate 10 years after the 
date of enactment of this section.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections in section 2 of 
Public Law 102-575 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
section 16__ the following:

``Sec. 16__. Eastern Municipal Water District Recycled Water System 
                            Pressurization and Expansion Project, 
                            California.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 10, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 122

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
  participate in the Eastern Municipal Water District Recycled Water 
              System Pressurization and Expansion Project.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) Cause No. 3:12-CR-128(5) RLM

)

JALEEN MCGEE )

OPINION AND ORDER

Jaleen McGee was sentenced to a 87-month term of imprisonment in 2013,

and is now before the court asking for a copy of his presentence investigation

report. Presentence reports are judicial records subject to the common-law right

of access, but are maintained under seal and afforded extra protection by the

courts to protect the traditional confidentiality of the personal information they

contain. United States v. Corbitt, 879 F.2d 224, 236 (7th Cir. 1989). See also

Smith v. United States District Court Officer, 203 F.3d 440, 441 (7th Cir. 2000);

United States v. Warner, 59 Fed.Appx. 134, 136 (7th Cir 2003). When judicial

records are confidential, a party seeking disclosure “must make a specific showing

of need for access to the document.” United States v. Corbitt, 879 F.2d at 228. Mr.

McGee hasn’t done so.

While Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e)(2) mandates disclosure of the report to the

defendant, the defendant’s attorney, and an attorney for the government prior to

sentencing, it appears from the record that Mr. McGee and his attorney, William

Stevens, received copies of the presentence report prior to sentencing. Mr. McGee

doesn’t suggest otherwise, or indicate why his copy of the report, or Mr. Stevens’s,
is no longer available to him, or why he’s requesting another copy. Accordingly,

Mr. McGee’s request for a duplicate copy of the presentence report [Doc. No. 389]

is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: February 27, 2019 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge, United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana

cc: S. Williams

Counsel of Record

USPO

2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 22437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11224]



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


Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Time and Date: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, May 10, 1995.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, C Street 
entrance between 20th and 21st Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:

    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal 
Reserve System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced 
meeting.

FOr Further Iinformation Contact: Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to the 
Board; (202) 452-3204. You may call (202) 452-3207, beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before this meeting, for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting.

    Dated: May 3, 1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-11224 Filed 5-3-95; 11:27 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
IN RE: Ernest L. JOHNSON

NO. 2019-B-0682

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 2019

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

Respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") submitted a joint *873petition for consent discipline, in which respondent acknowledges that he violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 3.3(a)(2), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Ernest L. Johnson, Louisiana Bar Roll number 7290, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, fully deferred.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court's judgment until paid.

Genovese, J., would reject consent discipline.
Terry L. HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3624

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11639]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43-CFR Public Land Order 7142

[NV-930-1430-01; NV-56315]


Withdrawal of Public Land for Administrative Site; Nevada

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Public Land Order.

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

SUMMARY: This order withdraws 40 acres of public land from surface 
entry and mining for a period of 20 years for the Bureau of Land 
Management to protect the Las Vegas Administrative Site in Clark 
County.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Samuelson, BLM Nevada State 
Office, P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada 89520, 702-785-6507.
    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior 
by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 
43 U.S.C. 1714 (1988), it is ordered as follows:
    1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described public 
land is hereby withdrawn from settlement, sale, location, or entry 
under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws 
(30 U.S.C. Ch. 2 (1988)), to protect the Bureau of Land Management Las 
Vegas Administrative Site:

Mount Diablo Meridian

T. 20 S., R. 60 E.,
    Sec. 22, SE\1/4\NW\1/4\.

    The area described contains 40 acres in Clark County.

    2. The withdrawal made by this order does not alter the 
applicability of those public land laws governing the use of the lands 
under lease, license, or permit, or governing the disposal of their 
mineral or vegetative resources other than under the mining laws.
    3. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of 
this order unless, as a result of a review conducted before the 
expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy 
and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (1988), the Secretary 
determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.

    Dated: May 1, 1995.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 95-11639 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
John Eric HUGHES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9948.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

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

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Anthony HOLLEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Marc INCH, Secretary, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.:2D19-2160

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEREMY VAUGHN PINSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

HAYDEN, Dr., Chief of Psychology;

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendants. No. 19

- 15515

D.C. No. 4:18

- cv

- 00382

- RM

PSOT

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 20, 2021 * *

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

F ederal prisoner Jeremy Vaughn Pinson appeals pro se from the district

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is no t precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JAN 28 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 15515

court’s judgment dismissing her action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971) for failure to

pay the filing fee after denying Pinson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”) . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the

district cou rt’s interpretation and application of § 1915(g), Washington v. L.A. Cty.

Sheriff’s Dep’t , 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016), and for abuse of discretion

for denial of leave to proceed IFP, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.

1990)

. We affirm.

The district court properly denied Pinson ’s motion to proceed IFP because

Pinson had filed three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or

for failure to state a claim, and s he did not plausibly allege that s he was “under

imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time s he lodged the complaint.

See 28 U.S. C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes , 493 F.3d 1047, 1053, 1055

- 56

(9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).

AFFIRMED.
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

MOHAMMED AZAD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TOKIO MARINE HCC - MEDICAL 

INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.17-cv-00618-PJH 

JUDGMENT

The court having dismissed the case with prejudice on September 22, 2017,

it is Ordered and Adjudged

that judgment is hereby entered in favor of defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2017

______________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:17-cv-00618-PJH Document 101 Filed 09/22/17 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32  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 Arbor Entech Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brad Houtkin, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Date:  December 14, 2010 /s/ Brad Houtkin. Brad Houtkin President and Chief Financial Officer
Order filed, May 27, 2015 .

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO S . 14 - 15 - 00244 - CR 14 - 15 - 00245 - CR 14 - 15 - 00246 - CR 14 - 15 - 00247 - CR

____________ WALTER LOUIS JACKSO N JUNIOR , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 268th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12 - DCR - 062008 , 12 - DCR - 062010, 12 - DCR - 062011, 12 - DCR - 062012



### ORDER The reporter’s record in this case was due April 21, 2015

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. On April 20, 2015 , Marsha Burrus filed a motion for extension of time to file the record which was granted until May 21, 2015

. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The record has not been2

filed with the co urt. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order. We order Marsha Burrus , the substitute court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
<CIK>                                       0000710507                         
<NAME>                               First Banks, Inc.                      
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               Mar-31-1997
<CASH>                                         106,996 
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,757
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               105,800
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    559,823
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          19,647
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      2,805,991
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (47,523)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,740,057  
<DEPOSITS>                                   3,278,116
<SHORT-TERM>                                    78,183
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             49,682
<LONG-TERM>                                     83,104
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     60,963
<COMMON>                                         5,915
<OTHER-SE>                                     184,094
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               3,740,057
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 60,224
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                7,981
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,095
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                69,300
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              32,260
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,014
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           33,286
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,850
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 23,894
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,751
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      11,751
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,836
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   277.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   266.65
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.15
<LOANS-NON>                                     29,341
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,712
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 30,476
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                46,781
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    4,741
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,633
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               47,523
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            47,523
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
Larry RICHARDSON, petitioner, v. Jeffrey WOODS, Warden.

No. 12-9698.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Annette FLUKER, petitioner, v. Johnnie COCHRAN, et al.

No. 12-8690.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Killa Tyrell RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1756

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 4, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.