alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-90

)

LUIS TAPIA )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on January 24, 2014, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America. The Defendant waived in open Court prosecution by

indictment and consented that the proceedings may be by information rather than by indictment.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant’s waiver of indictment is knowing and voluntary;
(3) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and

his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(4) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the sentencing guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(5) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(6) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(7) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(8) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept both the defendant’s waiver of indictment and plea

of guilty and that the Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the Information and

have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 24th day of January 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

2
Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Krupp
Realty Fund IV Financial Statements for the nine months ended September 30, 1996
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         811,035
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,167
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               599,436
<PP&E>                                      40,585,177<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                              24,362,701<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,671,114
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,053,250
<BONDS>                                     20,380,314<F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   (3,762,450)<F4>
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,671,114
<SALES>                                      5,511,822
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,511,822
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,616,964<F5>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             972,356
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (77,498)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (77,498)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (77,498)<F6>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes apartment complexes of $40,186,519 and deferred expenses
of $398,658.
<F2>Includes depreciation of $24,219,252 and amortization of deferred expenses o
$143,449.
<F3>Represents morgage notes payable.
<F4>Represents total deficit of General and Limited Partners of ($296,173) and
($3,466,277), respectively.
<F5>Includes operating expenses of $2,486,412, real estate tax expenses of
$558,172 and depreciation and amortization of $1,570,146 and minority
interest of $2,234.
<F6>Net loss allocated ($775) General Partners, ($3,100) Original Limited
Partners and ($73,623) to the Investor Limited Partners, for the nine months
ended September 30, 1996.  Average net loss per Unit of Limited Partners
Interest is ($2.45) on 30,000 Units outstanding.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Barbara Ann McNEIECE, petitioner, v. Mary LATTIMORE, Warden.

No. 12-9351.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
EX-33.3
(logo) FIS
TAX SERVICES
A DIVISION OF FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES

FIS Tax Services
3100 New York Drive, Suite 100
Pasadena, CA 91107
tel: 626.345.2010 * 866-457.4112
fax: 626.398.5205


Management Compliance Statement


Management of FIS Tax Services (FIS) and formerly known as LSI Tax Services, is
responsible for assessing compliance with applicable servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB of the Securities and Exchange
Commission relating to residential mortgage loans (the Platform), except for
General Servicing Consideration criteria (i) - (iv), Cash Collections and
Administration (i) - (vii), Investor Remittances and Reporting (i) - (iv), and
Pool Asset Administration (i) - (x), (xiv), and (xv), which FIS has determined
are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform.

FIS' management has assessed the effectiveness of the Company's compliance with
the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended 2007. In making
this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and
Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB. FIS has
determined the following servicing criteria in paragraph (d)(4) of Item 1122
are applicable to the activities it performed with respect to the Platform:

(xi)   Payments made on behalf of an obligor (such as tax or insurance
       payments) are made on or before the related penalty or expiration dates,
       as indicated on the appropriate bills or notices for such payments,
       provided that such support has been received by the servicer at least 30
       calendar days prior to these dates, or such other number of days
       specified in the transaction agreements.

(xii)  Any late payment penalties in connection with any payment to be made on
       behalf of an obligor are paid from the servicer's funds and not charged
       to the obligor, unless the late payment was due to the obligor's error
       or omission.

(xiii) Disbursements made on behalf of an obligor are posted within two
       business days to the obligor's records maintained by the servicer, or
       such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

Based on such assessment, management believes that, as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2007, FIS has complied in all material respects with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB of the Securities
and Exchange Commission relating to the servicing of the Platform.

KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report
with respect to management's assessment of compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria as of and for the year ended 2007.

To the best of my knowledge and belief, based on such assessment, FIS has
fulfilled all of its applicable obligations throughout the reporting period.



/s/ Darryl A. De Bond
Darryl A. De Bond
Executive Vice President

January 05, 2008
Regulatory Procedures Manual March 2009 Chapter 7 Recall Procedures 

___________________________________________________________________________

7-56

Exhibit 7-3 

MODEL EFFECTIVENESS CHECK QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TELEPHONE OR PERSONAL 

VISITS (INDUSTRY) 

Consignee Name and Address 

(Pressure Sensitive Label) 

 

JOHN DOE PRODUCT RECALL 

After contacting the consignee and locating the person responsible for handling recall 

notifications and/or the product involved, an opening similar to the following may be used. 

This is (Name of Interviewer). I am calling for (recalling firm) to check on the effectiveness of 

the company recall of (product description, including codes). On (date), (recalling firm) notified 

(how: letter, telephone, visit, mailgram, etc.), all firms which may have purchased (product) 

that all stock should be (returned, destroyed, modified, relabeled, etc.). I have the following 

questions to ask you about this recall: 

 DATE_____________ 

1. Did your firm receive notification that (product name) products manufactured by 

 John Doe Company are being recalled? 

 YES______ NO______ 

2. Did your firm receive shipments of the product being recalled? (If no, terminate 

 questioning and go to the closing). 

 YES______ NO_______ 

3. Do you have any of the recalled product on hand? (Please check inventories before

 answering). 

 YES______ NO________ 

4. If the answer to question 3 is YES, do you intend to return the product to the 

 John Doe Company as requested? 

 YES_______ NO________ 
 Regulatory Procedures Manual March 2009 Chapter 7 Recall Procedures 

___________________________________________________________________________

7-57

5. If the answer to question 4 is NO, please explain your intentions 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

6. Have you received any reports of illness or injury related to this product? 

 YES_______ NO________ 

 If yes, please provide details. 

Thank you for your cooperation. 

And your name is ________________________________________________ 

And what is your title please?_______________________________________ 

Interviewer____________________________ 

Date__________________________________ 

IF RESPONDENT HAS ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, ASK HIM/HER TO CONTACT THE 

JOHN DOE COMPANY, SOMEPLACE, SOMEWHERE 12345
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00176-CR

Roger Liverman

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 362nd District Court

of Denton County (F-2012-0136-D)

October 9, 2014

Opinion by Justice Meier

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. We reverse the trial court’s 

judgment and render a judgment of acquittal.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
James Michael FORNEY, petitioner, v. BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al.

No. 12-8478.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0466

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RYAN HUNTER ZITNIK,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 13, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 17 2022

11/17/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0466
James E. DIVERS, petitioner, v. Burl CAIN, Warden.

No. 12-8081.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
1

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S JOINDER IN OPPOSITION FILED BY UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

and OTTOMOTTO LLC (DOCKET NUMBER 369) and [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No.: 3:17-00939-WHA

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

MILES EHRLICH (Bar No. 237954)

miles@ramsey-ehrlich.com

ISMAIL RAMSEY (Bar No. 189820)

izzy@ramsey-ehrlich.com

AMY CRAIG (Bar No. 269339)

amy@ramsey-ehrlich.com

RAMSEY & EHRLICH LLP

803 Hearst Avenue

Berkeley, CA 94710

(510) 548-3600 (Tel)

(510) 291-3060 (Fax)

Attorneys for Non-Party Anthony Levandowski

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

NON-PARTY ANTHONY 

LEVANDOWSKI’S JOINDER IN 

OPPOSITION FILED BY UBER

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Date: June 8, 2017

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Courtroom: F, 15th Floor

Judge: The Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley

Trial Date: October 2, 2017

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that non-party Anthony Levandowski, by and through his 

counsel, hereby joins in defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. and Ottomotto LLC’s opposition to 

Waymo’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Docket No. 369) and all documents that support Uber’s 

opposition to that motion. Mr. Levandowski has standing to join in Uber’s opposition in that he, 

like Uber, is a party to the joint defense agreement that protects the materials at issue, and like 

Uber, Mr. Levandowski objects to the production of the materials based on the attorney-client, 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 384 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 3
2

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S JOINDER IN OPPOSITION FILED BY UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

and OTTOMOTTO LLC (DOCKET NUMBER 369) and [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No.: 3:17-00939-WHA

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

attorney-work product, and common interest privileges. Accordingly, Mr. Levandowski relies 

on the points and authorities set forth in Uber’s memorandum in support of its opposition to 

Waymo’s motion to compel. 

Date: May 8, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/

Miles Ehrlich

Ismail Ramsey

Amy Craig

Ramsey & Ehrlich

Counsel for Non-Party Anthony 

Levandowski 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 384 Filed 05/08/17 Page 2 of 3
3

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S JOINDER IN OPPOSITION FILED BY UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

and OTTOMOTTO LLC (DOCKET NUMBER 369) and [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No.: 3:17-00939-WHA

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Non-party Anthony Levandowski may join Uber Technologies, Inc. and Ottomotto 

LLC’s Opposition to Waymo’s Motion to Compel Production of Withheld Documents (Docket 

No. 369).

DATE: ________________ ________________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 384 Filed 05/08/17 Page 3 of 3
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 

ANNETTE PETERS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PFIZER INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-01196-TEH 

REFERRAL FOR PURPOSE OF 

DETERMINING RELATIONSHIP 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(c), the above-entitled case is hereby REFERRED 

to the Honorable Edward M. Chen for consideration of whether the case is related to 

Little v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01177-EMC. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 03/14/17 ______________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-01196-EMC Document 105 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted),
Kambiz Hooshmand, Chief Executive Officer of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Report
to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.



/s/    KAMBIZ HOOSHMANDKambiz Hooshmand President and Chief Executive Officer


Dated: January 9, 2007
Preston G. DEMOUCHETTE, Jr., petitioner, v. James M. LeBLANC, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections.

No. 12-9241.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Blondell F. MITCHELL, petitioner, v. KJMC 89.3 F.M. aka KJMC 89.3, et al.

No. 12-9740.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Marcos Alejandro TRAFICANTE, Appellant, v. Shanelle LAMBERT, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1739

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 26, 2019

Jose-Carlos Villanueva, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Before SALTER, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See* § 784.046, Fla. Stat. (2018) (action by victim of repeat violence; defining "violence" to include assault, and "repeat violence" to mean two incidents of violence committed by the respondent, one of which must have been within six months of the filing of the petition); *Levy v. Jacobs*, 69 So. 3d 403, 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) ("An appellate court reviews an order granting an injunction for protection against repeat violence to determine whether each alleged act of violence is supported by competent, substantial evidence").

In the trial court, the appellee/petitioner was represented by counsel, testified to the first and second incidents of violence (May 27, 2018, and April 8, 2018), and provided corroborative evidence through the testimony of a law enforcement officer and photographic evidence. The second incident *795indisputably occurred less than six months prior to the filing of the petition. The respondent, who is the appellant here, was not represented by counsel in the trial court and provided no evidence beyond his own denial.

In this Court, the appellee/petitioner is not represented by counsel and has not filed a brief or memorandum of points and authorities. Nonetheless, the appellant has failed to demonstrate legal error, and the record provides competent, substantial evidence supporting the final judgment of injunction for protection against repeat violence (after notice).

Affirmed.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE
                            DATED OCTOBER 10, 1996
                                BY AND BETWEEN

         VESTAR DEVELOPMENT CO., an Arizona corporation, ("PURCHASER")
                                      and
                 GLENDALE FASHION CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
                  an Illinois limited partnership ("SELLER")

                                   RECITALS

     A.   The parties have entered into the above-described Agreement of
Purchase and Sale ("Agreement").

     B.   The parties now wish to amend their agreement in the manner set forth
below.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

          1.   The reference to "5:00 p.m. Chicago time on November 8, 1996" in
the second line of Section 7.1 of the Agreement is deleted and "4:00 p.m.
Chicago time on November 26, 1996" is substituted therefor.

          2.   Except as modified herein, the Agreement, as amended by this
Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect.

          3.   The effective date of this Amendment is November 8, 1996.

                         SELLER:  GLENDALE FASHION CENTER
                         LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Illinois limited 
                         partnership

                         By:   /s/ James E. Mendelson
                              -------------------------------------------
                         Name:     James E. Mendelson
                              --------------------------------------------
                         Its:      Authorized Representative
                              --------------------------------------------


                         PURCHASER:  VESTAR DEVELOPMENT CO., 
                         an Arizona corporation

                         By:   /s/ Richard J. Kuhle
                              -----------------------------------------------
                         Name:     Richard J. Kuhle
                              -----------------------------------------------
                         Its:      Senior Vice President
                              -----------------------------------------------
<PAGE>