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

CANDIDA PALEGA, on behalf of herself and

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE PROPERTY SCIENCES GROUP

INCORPORATED,

Defendant. /

No. C 17-00855 WHA

ORDER RE STIPULATION TO

CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR

CLASS CERTIFICATION

MOTION

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ stipulated request for a continuance of the class

certification deadline. Counsel shall please explain how many depositions have been taken to

date, when those depositions were taken, and whether the parties have otherwise been diligent

in taking discovery. The parties SHALL SUBMIT a response by 5:00 P.M. TODAY. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
George HEATH, petitioner, v. WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., et al.

No. 12-9418.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Jason OWENS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9855.

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.
Stephen J. SCHNEIDER, et ux., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10323.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
February
12, 2009

     

    Dear
Shareholder:

    


    Thank you
for your investment in German American Bancorp, Inc, and your participation in
our Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan.  We are pleased to
provide you with a copy of our new prospectus for this Plan.

    


    Key
features of the Plan allow you, as a participant, to:

    


    
      	
              ·  

            	
              Conveniently
      acquire additional shares of Common Stock with no brokerage fees by
      reinvesting cash dividends and making voluntary monthly cash
      purchases.

            


    

    
      	
              ·  

            	
              Deposit
      additional shares, held in paper stock certificates, to the Plan for
      safekeeping.

            


    

    
      	
              ·  

            	
               Receive
      a statement of account detailing your transactions and accumulated share
      balance promptly following each
transaction.

            


    

    
      	
              ·  

            	
              Sell
      shares directly through the Plan with transaction costs less than that
      typically occurred through a broker.  A new feature of the Plan
      is the ability to sell your shares on a same day
  basis.

            


    

    


    As a participant in the existing
Plan, you don’t need to take any action to continue your participation in the
Plan in the same manner as you have previously utilized the
Plan.  If, at anytime, you wish to discontinue your
participation, you may do so by giving notice to our transfer agent,
Computershare as specified in the enclosed prospectus.

    


    If you
have any questions or need additional information, please contact Terri Eckerle,
our Investor Relations Officer, at 812-482-0703 or Computershare at
800-884-4225.

    


    Again,
thank you for your investment in German American and for continuing to grow your
investment through your participation in our Dividend Reinvestment and Stock
Purchase Plan.

    


    Sincerely,

     

    Mark A.
Schroeder

    President
& CEO
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 30, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1669

Lower Tribunal No. 18-9086

________________

Trandworld, Inc.,

Petitioner,

vs.

Justin Rubin, et al.,

Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade 

County, Martin Zilber, Judge.

Tirado-Luciano & Tirado, and Monica Tirado and Alex Tirado-Luciano, 

for petitioner.

Siegfried Rivera, and B. Michael Clark, Jr., for respondents.

Before LINDSEY, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Petition dismissed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(c)(1) (providing that a 

petition for certiorari must “be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to 

be reviewed”); see also Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Lewis, 122 

So. 3d 504, 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (dismissing untimely petition for lack of 

jurisdiction).
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO MAKE STATEMENT UNDER OATH

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

sf-3757520 

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 

MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)

MJacobs@mofo.com 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490) 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

ERIC A. TATE (CA SBN 178719) 

ETate@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC, and OTTO TRUCKING LLC 

KAREN L. DUNN (Pro Hac Vice) 

kdunn@bsfllp.com 

HAMISH P.M. HUME (Pro Hac Vice) 

hhume@bsfllp.com 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington DC 20005 

Telephone: 202.237.2727 

Facsimile: 202.237.6131 

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; OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 

Defendants. 

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

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND 

OTTOMOTTO LLC’S RESPONSE 

TO ORDER TO MAKE STATEMENT 

UNDER OATH 

Trial Date: October 2, 2017 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 197 Filed 04/10/17 Page 1 of 2
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO MAKE STATEMENT UNDER OATH 

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

sf-3757520 

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 

1. Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) and Ottomotto LLC (“Ottomotto”) 

file this Response to the Court’s Order to make a statement under oath regarding whether 

Defendants have ever resisted arbitration on the ground that an adverse party seeking to enforce 

an arbitration agreement was not actually a signatory to said agreement. (Dkt. No. 142.) 

2. Neither Uber nor Ottomotto has ever resisted arbitration on the ground that an 

adverse party seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement was not actually a signatory to said 

agreement. (See Declaration of Aaron Bergstrom.) 

Dated: April 10, 2017 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Arturo J. González 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC, and OTTO TRUCKING LLC

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 197 Filed 04/10/17 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
FURNISHED 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 annual report of SunSi Energies Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the year ended May 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the Report), the
undersigned officer of the Company does hereby certify, pursuant to Rule
15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section
1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
his 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 Company.








Date:
August 30, 2010





By:
            /s/
      David NatanName:
            David
      NatanTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer
Jose N. BETETA, petitioner, v. Ralph M. DIAZ, Warden.

No. 12-9151.

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.
A Salad to Die For?

One day, | was doing two things ..then | cut lettuce on the same
at once. | prepped meat... cutting board without properly
cleaning and sanitizing it first.

By not washing, rinsing, and sanitizing my cutting board, 20 customers got very ill, one
person died, and our restaurant closed.

Protect People Everywhere. Always Wash, Rinse, _
and Sanitize Equipment and Utensils Between Uses.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<CIK>                         0000710507
<NAME>                        First Banks, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000      
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               Mar-31-1998
<CASH>                                         169,310
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,901
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               121,950
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 5,566
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    707,399
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          19,289
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      3,094,045
<ALLOWANCE>                                     54,043
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,323,412
<DEPOSITS>                                   3,824,802
<SHORT-TERM>                                    71,511
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             58,152
<LONG-TERM>                                    130,709
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     13,063
<COMMON>                                         5,915
<OTHER-SE>                                     219,260
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               4,323,412
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 66,738
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               11,056
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,136
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                78,930
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              38,088
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,601
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           38,329
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,100
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  92
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 32,059
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,964
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      11,964
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,366
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   302.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   293.85
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.32
<LOANS-NON>                                     26,108
<LOANS-PAST>                                     4,352
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 2,803
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 26,010
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                50,509
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   (2,056)
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,605
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               54,043
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            54,043
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          7,233
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 1998 for May Drilling Partnership  1983-1 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000711308
<NAME>                        May Drilling Partnership 1983-1
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         130
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  55
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               185
<PP&E>                                         7,318
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,111
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 392
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          13
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     379
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   392
<SALES>                                        69
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               71
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  38
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                33
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            33
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   33
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  3.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  3.18
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1  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 Thunder Mountain Gold Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, E. James Collord, President, Director and Chief Executive 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; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ E. James Collord By __________________________________ E.  James Collord President, Director and Chief Executive Officer Date:  October 20, 2006
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.;

OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO

TRUCKING LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

PENDING MOTIONS RE 

OTTO TRUCKING 

In light of the order on defendant Otto Trucking LLC’s motion for summary judgment

(Dkt. No. 2151 at 8–13), plaintiff Waymo LLC’s motion for an order to show cause against

Otto Trucking (Dkt. No. 847), Otto Trucking’s motion to strike Waymo’s damages (Dkt. No.

942), Waymo’s motion to exclude damages expert James Malackowski (Dkt. No. 1607), Otto

Trucking’s motion to exclude forensics experts Gary Brown and Kristinn Gudjonsson (Dkt. No.

1620), Otto Trucking’s motion for a separate trial (Dkt. No. 1841), and Otto Trucking’s motion

to exclude technical expert Lambertus Hesselink (Dkt. No. 2015) are DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 2161 Filed 10/31/17 Page 1 of 1
Bernard JEMISON, petitioner, v. Richard ALLEN, et al.

No. 12-9047.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
#### Guru SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-73114.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 29, 2004.

Decided April 27, 2004.

Mare A. Karlin, Esq., Louis A. Gordon, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Esq., M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., Jamie M. Dowd, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, BEEZER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*511MEMORANDUM *

After previously filing and -withdrawing claims for asylum and withholding of removal, Guru Singh moved to reopen his case before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) to apply for asylum and withholding based on changed country conditions. Singh appeals the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. *Singh v. INS,*213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000) *(citing INS v. Doherty,*502 U.S. 314, 324, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992)). We will reverse the denial of a motion to reopen only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” *Id.*We review the BIA’s determinations of legal questions *de novo, id.,*and factual findings for substantial evidence, *Sharma v. INS,*89 F.3d 545, 547 (9th Cir.1996).

A motion to reopen must state the new facts an applicant seeks to prove and be supported by affidavits or other new evidentiary material. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The applicant must show that the evidence could not have been discovered and presented at the prior hearing. *Doherty,*502 U.S. at 314. This new evidence also must establish *prima facie*eligibility for the underlying substantive relief requested. *INS v. Wang, 450*U.S. 139, 141, 101 S.Ct. 1027, 67 L.Ed.2d 123 (1981).

Singh fails to present any new, material evidence, the facts of which were not available to him at the time he decided to withdraw his application for asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA’s finding that Singh did not produce any previously-unavailable evidence is supported by substantial evidence. In the absence of new, material evidence, Singh is unable to establish *prima facie*eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. The BIA’s denial of Singh’s motion to reopen was not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2285

DOROTHY M. JEFFRIES, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. WILLIAM CHAVIS, d/b/a Cape Fear Upholstery of Fayetteville, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:08-cv-00519-BO)

Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 20, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dorothy M. Jeffries, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Dorothy Jeffries appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her personal property damage complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Jeffries that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Jeffries failed to make timely, specific objections to the magistrate judge’s

recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Jeffries has waived appellate review by filing objections that were neither timely nor specific to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Jeffries’s motion for a transcript at government expense and affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

23 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED