alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-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 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

Karen L. Dunn (Pro Hac Vice app. pending) 

kdunn@bsfllp.com 

Hamish P.M. Hume (Pro Hac Vice app. pending) 

hhume@bsfllp.com 

Michael A. Brille (Pro Hac Vice app. to be filed) 

mbrille@bsfllp.com 

Jessica E. Phillips (Pro Hac Vice app. pending) 

jphillips@bsfllp.com 

Martha L. Goodman (Pro Hac Vice app. pending) 

mgoodman@bsfllp.com 

Kyle N. Smith (Pro Hac Vice app. pending) 

ksmith@bsfllp.com 

1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20005 

Tel: (202) 237-2727; Fax: (202) 237-6131 

Meredith R. Dearborn (CA SBN 268312) 

mdearborn@bsfllp.com 

425 Tasso Street, Suite 205 

Palo Alto, CA 94307 

Tel: (650) 445-6400; Fax: (650) 329-8507 

Michael D. Jay (CA SBN 223827) 

mjay@bsfllp.com 

401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850 

Santa Monica, CA 90401 

Tel: (310) 752-2400; Fax: (310) 752-2490 

Attorneys for Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. 

and Ottomotto LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., OTTOMOTTO 

LLC, and OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 

 Defendants. 

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

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF 

MICHAEL D. JAY 

Assigned to Hon. William H. Alsup 

Complaint Filed: February 23, 2017 

First Am. Compl. Filed: March 10, 2017 

Trial Date: Not set 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 91 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 2
1 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-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 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT attorney Michael D. Jay (mjay@ bsfllp.com) of Boies 

Schiller Flexner LLP, a member of the State Bar of California, and admitted to practice before this 

Court, hereby enters his appearance in the above-captioned matter as counsel for Defendants Uber 

Technologies, Inc. and Ottomotto LLC. 

Dated: March 25, 2017 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

By: /s/ Michael D. Jay 

Michael D. Jay (CA SBN 223827) 

mjay@bsfllp.com 

401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850 

Santa Monica, CA 90401 

Telephone: (310) 752-2400 

Facsimile: (310) 752-2490 

Attorneys for Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. 

and Ottomotto LLC 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 91 Filed 03/27/17 Page 2 of 2
L.C. STACKER, petitioner, v. Jeff NORMAN, Warden.

No. 12-8422.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Oliver YOUNG, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-9088.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25251-25252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11634]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; Michigan Materials and Processing Institute

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 14, 1995, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, [[Page 25252]] 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Michigan 
Materials and Processing Institute (``MMPI'') has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, the following 
companies were recently accepted as Class A Shareholders in MMPI: 
Gougeon Brothers, Inc., Bay City, MI; and Carl H. Schmidt Company, 
Southfield, MIT.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and MMPI intends to file additional 
written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On August 7, 1990, MMPI filed its original notification pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on 
September 6, 1990, 55 FR 36710. The last notification was filed with 
the Department on September 29, 1994. A notice was published in the 
Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on November 3, 
1994, 59 FR 55131.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-11634 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
General Hospital and Personal Use Devices 

Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory 

Committee 

Link for Audience/Viewers 

February 6, 2024 - WebCast Link 

YouTube: 

https://youtu.be/OzbRVSXCHqA 

Please log on 20 minutes before the webcast to test your signal. 

You may have to refresh your browser before logging on.
Charles Lamont SMILES, petitioner, v. CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, et al.

No. 12-9144.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 127 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR THE UN4 VEILING OF MARTHA HUGHES CANNON STAT5 UE. 

6 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Emancipation Hall in the 

7 Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to be used for an 

2 

•HCON 127 EH 

1 event on December 11, 2024, to unveil a statue of Martha 

2 Hughes Cannon. 

3 (b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the 

4 conduct of the event described in subsection (a) shall be 

5 carried out in accordance with such conditions as may be 

6 prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 23, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 127 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the 

ue of Martha Hughes Cannon. Capitol Visitor Center for the unveiling of a statVerDate Sep 11 2014 09:58 Sep 24, 2024 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6651 Sfmt 6651 Z:\XMLBILLS\HC127.EH hc127
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

CALEB AVERY TBEAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

BARRY FORMAN,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00796-JSC 

ORDER RE: MOTION TO ENLARGE 

TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION

Re: Dkt. No. 290

The Court entered judgment in this case on February 24, 2020. (Dkt. No. 240.) On 

August 5, 2021, Plaintiff Caleb Avery t’Bear filed an emergency motion to set aside the judgment, 

(Dkt. No. 288), and Defendant Barry Forman now moves to enlarge time to file an opposition by 

one week. (Dkt. No. 290.) The deadline for Plaintiff to oppose an enlargement has passed. See

N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 6-3(b).

Defendant explains with particularity that lead counsel and co-counsel have planned 

vacations this month and that Defendant would be prejudiced by opposing Plaintiff’s motion under 

the time constraints. Defendant also describes unsuccessful efforts to obtain a stipulation for the 

enlargement of time. The enlargement will have no effect on the case schedule as it will not delay 

the hearing. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 6-3(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) (“[T]he court may, for 

good cause, extend the time with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is 

made, before the original time or its extension expires[.]”).

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s emergency 

motion to set aside the judgment is due on or before August 26, 2021. Plaintiff’s reply is due on 

or before September 2, 2021. The hearing remains set for September 30, 2021.

//

Case 3:17-cv-00796-JSC Document 291 Filed 08/17/21 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2021

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00796-JSC Document 291 Filed 08/17/21 Page 2 of 2
Jason Jerrel AUSLER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9052.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Donald A. SHAW, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 12-9147.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.
212° F 100° C

 194 90

 176 80

 158 70

 140 60

 122 50

 104 40

 86 30

 68 20

 50 10

 32 0

Ground 

beef is 

90° F

DA NGER!

Apagado

Alt

o

Med ai

aB on

oj

La importancia de mantener caliente las 

comidas calientes.

La carne 

molida esta 

a 90 ̊F 

(32 ̊C). ¡Peligro!

Mantenga siempre

las comidas 

calientes a 135 ̊F 

(57 ̊C) o más.

Recuerde:

¡Mantenga la 

comida fuera 

de la zona 

de peligro de 

temperaturas: 

41 ̊F - 135 ̊F 

(5 ̊C - 57 ̊C)!

Protege a todos.

Mantenga siempre las comidas 

calientes a 135 ̊F o más.
[Cite as State v. Belanger, 2017-Ohio-146.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2016-04-070 

 : D E C I S I O N 

 - vs - 1/17/2016 

 : 

JOHN WESLEY BELANGER, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2013-04-0565 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Government Services Center, 315 

High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee 

Neal D. Schuett, 121 West High Street, Oxford, Ohio 45056, for defendant-appellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of 

the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the 

Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon a brief filed by appellant's counsel. 

{¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, John Wesley Belanger, has filed a brief with this court 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that 

a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the 
Butler CA2016-04-070 

- 2 - 

trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be 

predicated; (2) lists four potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders at 

744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to 

determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant 

on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief 

and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason that 

it is wholly frivolous. 

 M. POWELL, P.J., HENDRICKSON and PIPER, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 29, 2018

No. 04-18-00003-CR

Christine RUSSELL,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-0695-CR

Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On February 8, 2018, the court reporter responsible for preparing the record in this case 

filed a notification of late record, indicating that the appellant had failed to designate the 

reporter’s record and had failed to pay the reporter’s record fee or to make arrangements for 

preparing the reporter’s record. On February 9, 2018, we ordered the appellant to provide written 

proof that she had filed a designation of record with the court reporter, and either had paid the

reporter’s record fee, had made arrangements to pay the reporter’s record fee, or was entitled to 

appeal without paying the reporter’s record fee. We further ordered that if the appellant failed to 

respond within the time provided, the appellant’s brief would be due within thirty days of the 

date of our order.

Further review of the clerk’s record shows that the appellant’s court-appointed counsel 

was permitted to withdraw from this case on January 2, 2018, and no counsel was appointed in 

his place. On March 27, 2018, Gregory Sherwood filed a notice of appearance as appellant’s 

court-appointed counsel on appeal. Mr. Sherwood filed a copy of the trial court’s March 26, 

2018 order appointing him as the appellant’s counsel. In its order, the trial court found that 

appellant is “too poor to employ counsel” for her appeal. Mr. Sherwood also filed a copy of a 

request to the court reporter designating the reporter’s record on appeal.

The appellant was without the benefit of counsel at the time we issued our February 9, 

2018 order. We, therefore, WITHDRAW the portion of our February 9, 2018 order stating that 

the appellant’s brief would due in the absence of proof that she had filed a designation of record 

within fourteen days of this order.
Additionally, in light of the trial court’s March 26, 2018 finding that the appellant is too 

poor to appoint counsel in this appeal, we conclude that the appellant is entitled to appeal 

without paying the filing fee for the reporter’s record. We ORDER the court reporter to file the 

reporter’s record on or before April 27, 2018. The appellant’s brief will be due thirty days after 

the reporter’s record is filed.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of March, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
##### 



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 Sabine Royalty Trust
(the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, not in its individual
capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its
knowledge:  (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 Trust.  BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FORSABINE ROYALTY TRUST  By:
    /s/ Ron E. Hooper Ron E. HooperSenior Vice President, Royalty Management Date: August 7, 2007 A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Sabine Royalty Trust and
will be retained by Sabine Royalty Trust and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Jeffrey ZHU, petitioner, v. Charles WARREN, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.

No. 12-8816.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
EX-35.9
Wachovia Securities
201 South College Street
CP9
Charlotte, NC 28244-1075



(logo) WACHOVIA SECURITIES



1123 SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated
as of September 1, 2007, by and among Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
Securities Corp., as Depositor, KEYCORP Real Estate Capital Markets, Inc., as
Master Servicer, Wachovia Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,
Midland Loan Services, as Master Servicer, NCB, FSB as Master Servicer, ING
Clarion Partners, LLC as Special Servicer, National Consumer Cooperative Bank,
as Special Servicer , and Wells Fargo as Trustee, with respect to Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-C4 (the "Agreement").
Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings
assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 12.11 of this Agreement, Timothy Ryan and Marilyn Addison,
Managing Director of Customer Relationship Management and Director of
Compliance Third Party Oversight, do hereby certify that:

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer,that is applicable during
   the period from September 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007, and of its
   performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under our
   supervision; and

2. To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
   fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material
   respects throughout the period September 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007;


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate as of the
l0th day of March 2008.



/s/ Timothy Ryan
Timothy Ryan, Managing Director
Wachovia Bank National Association


/s/ Marilyn Addison
Marilyn Addison, Director
Wachovia Bank National Association
EXHIBIT 1

   

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 370-1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 370-1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 370-1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 370-1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James J. Polakiewicz, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Alpha Technologies Group, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) (Intentionally left blank)

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

/s/ James J. Polakiewicz
--------------------------
James J. Polakiewicz
Chief Financial Officer
June 14, 2004

                                       24
Michael Allen CLARK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2472

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 10, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

In this appeal pursuant to *Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm the revocation of Appellant's probation and the resulting judgment and sentence. We note, however, that the written revocation order does not conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement in that it indicates Appellant violated conditions three and five of his probation, when the court found only a violation of condition three. On remand, the court should enter a corrected order accurately specifying the basis for the revocation.

*264*See**Wilkerson v. State* , 82 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with directions.

Ray, C.J., and Wetherell and Winokur, JJ., concur.
Michael Todd SIMS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9655.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

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