alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UBER AND OTTOMOTTO’S RESPONSES TO COURT’S QUESTIONS FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE TS 96 

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

sf-3820367 

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 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

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 

WILLIAM CARMODY (Pro Hac Vice) 

bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com 

SHAWN RABIN (Pro Hac Vice) 

srabin@SusmanGodfrey.com 

SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 

1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor 

New York, NY 10019-6023 

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 

DEFENDANTS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

AND OTTOMOTTO LLC’S RESPONSES TO 

COURT’S QUESTIONS 1-2 AND 5-8 FOR 

FURTHER HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE 

ASSERTED TRADE SECRET NUMBER 96 

Date: September 6, 2017 

Time: 8:00 a.m. 

Ctrm: 8, 19th Floor 

Judge: The Honorable William Alsup 

Trial Date: October 10, 2017 

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT TO BE SEALED 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1462 Filed 09/05/17 Page 1 of 1
peepee See

Paes

fi

b

be

tay

Wp

:
cee
He BF

it

*

i
i
=
ee
ae
ie
es
oe
|
e
é 2
ae =
oe
fae ;
ett a
ee
Bee
see
a
= ce
- 2 Breer oe

gees

SERRE

ze

ei
: “ite
i |
eae
ae a
2 ee
ee
rr ee
Jeffrey Glenn TOOHEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9332.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
William Lee WALTERS, Jr., petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-7352.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

*1798Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11646]



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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2071]


Application for Review of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

May 8, 1995.
    Application for review have been filed in the Commission rulemaking 
proceedings listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 
CFR 1.429(e). The full text of this document is available for viewing 
and copying in Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. or may 
be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor ITS, Inc. (202) 857-
3800. Opposition to this petition must be filed by May 26, 1995. See 
Sec. 1.4(b) (1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b) (1)). Replies 
to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing 
oppositions has expired.
    Subject: In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.606(b), Table of 
Allotments, Television Broadcast Stations. (Albion, Nebraska) (MM 
Docket No. 94-143).
    Number of Petition Filed: 1.

Federal Communications Commission.
LaVera F. Marshall,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11646 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 36979

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ALEJANDRO PINEDA FARFAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 540

Filed: June 30, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Jerome County. Hon. John K. Butler, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of two, for felony driving under the influence, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

______________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Alejandro Pineda Farfan pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. § 18-

8004, 18-8005(7). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The 

district court sentenced Farfan to a unified term of eight years, with a minimum period of 

confinement of two. Farfan appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 
2

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Farfan’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-10453

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Maxwell David Wilson, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:21-CR-125-1

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Maxwell David Wilson appeals his sentence for distribution of child 

pornography. We pretermit consideration of the applicability of the appeal 

waiver in his plea agreement. See United States v. De Leon, 915 F.3d 386, 289 

n.2 (5th Cir. 2019). 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 15, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10453 Document: 00516647346 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2023
No. 22-10453

2

Given Wilson’s history of direct sexual abuse of a child, he has not 

shown that the imposition of a condition of supervised release limiting his 

contact with minors was plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 

129, 135 (2009); United States v. Cabello, 33 F.4th 281, 291 (5th Cir. 2022); 

United States v. Ellis, 720 F.3d 220, 223-24 (5th Cir. 2013). The challenged 

condition is not absolute, as it permits Wilson to have supervised contact 

with persons under the age of 18, and, with his probation officer’s permission, 

to work or volunteer where minors congregate and to have an intentional 

relationship with someone who has minor children. Cf. United States v. Duke, 

788 F.3d 392, 401-03 (5th Cir. 2015). 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-10453 Document: 00516647346 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2023
Carter TILLERY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9623.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Michael G. HARPER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9558.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 22413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11099]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Electrical and Communications Systems; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Electrical and Communications 
Systems (#1196)
    Date and Time: May 23, 1995; 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: Room 360, NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 
22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Persons: Dr. Paul Werbos, Program Director 
Neuroengineering, Division of Electrical and Communications Systems, 
NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 675, Arlington, VA 22230, 
Telephone: (703) 306-1339.
    Purpose: To provide advice and recommendations concerning 
proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Academic Research Infrastructure 
(ARI) proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include data, 
such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the proposals. These matters are within exemptions 4 
and 6 of 5 U.S.C. 552b.(c) (4) and (6) the Government in the 
Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 1, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-11099 Filed 5-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
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 SETTING

CONFERENCE RE RECENT

DEVELOPMENTS

A conference to discuss recent developments in this civil action is hereby set for

SEPTEMBER 18 AT 1:00 P.M. For at least the time being, this conference will remain under seal. 

At least one attorney from each side should attend. The special master may also attend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1537 Filed 09/13/17 Page 1 of 1
#### Florencio Romulo MAZARIEGOS-REYES, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-74257.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2004.*

Decided April 23, 2004.

Frank H. Kim, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Daniel E. Goldman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Florencio Rumulo Mazariegos-Reyes (“Reyes”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“U”) denial of asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Because the IJ failed to make his credibility determination explicitly adverse, Reyes testimony must be deemed credible. *See, e.g., Artiga Turcios v. INS,*829 F.2d 720, 723 (9th Cir.1987). However, the evidence does not compel reversal of the IJ’s finding that Reyes failed to show an objectively reasonable fear of persecution upon return to Guatemala. *See Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir.2003) (noting that to satisfy the objective component, an alien must show that he has “suffered from past persecution ... or that []he has a good reason to fear future persecution by adducing credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record of facts that would support a reasonable fear of persecution”).

*470By failing to qualify for asylum, Reyes necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Hoxha v. Ashcroft,*319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir.2003).

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.
Paul Leigh BURT, petitioner, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden.

No. 13-6327.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

          <ARTICLE>           5
          <LEGEND>            THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
                              INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
                              STATEMENTS OF NIAGARA CORPORATION AND
                              SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
                              BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
          </LEGEND>
                 
          <S>                                 <C>
          <PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS       
          <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997 
          <PERIOD-START>                      JAN-1-1997 
          <PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-1997 
          <CASH>                                3,828,135 
          <SECURITIES>                                  0 
          <RECEIVABLES>                        28,215,029 
          <ALLOWANCES>                            671,083 
          <INVENTORY>                          38,768,009 
          <CURRENT-ASSETS>                     70,639,758 
          <PP&E>                               95,457,990 
          <DEPRECIATION>                        4,230,587 
          <TOTAL-ASSETS>                      176,186,577 
          <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                43,241,487
          <BONDS>                              83,277,692 
          <COMMON>                                  3,955 
          <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0 
          <PREFERRED>                                   0 
          <OTHER-SE>                           18,229,595 
          <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        176,186,577
          <SALES>                              90,582,209 
          <TOTAL-REVENUES>                     90,582,209 
          <CGS>                                77,636,244 
          <TOTAL-COSTS>                        77,636,244 
          <OTHER-EXPENSES>                      8,571,274 
          <LOSS-PROVISION>                              0 
          <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    2,146,819 
          <INCOME-PRETAX>                       2,254,343 
          <INCOME-TAX>                            868,432 
          <INCOME-CONTINUING>                   1,385,911 
          <DISCONTINUED>                                0 
          <EXTRAORDINARY>                               0 
          <CHANGES>                                     0 
          <NET-INCOME>                          1,385,911 
          <EPS-PRIMARY>                               .37 
          <EPS-DILUTED>                               .37 
                  

</TABLE>
Julie Ann SMITH, petitioner, v. Julie Rose ROWELL.

No. 12-1070.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.
**Exhibit 23**

** **

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-147290)pertaining to the OSG America L.P. 2007 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan ofOSG America L.P. of our report dated March 6, 2008 with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of OSG America L.P. and the predecessorcombined carve-out financial statements of OSG America Predecessor, included inthis Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.

 
|                          | /s/ Ernst &  Young LLP |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------|
| Certified Public  Accountants |                       |
| Tampa, FL                     |                       |
| March 6, 2008            |                       |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12060]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER95-824-000]


Puget Sound Power & Light Company; Notice of Filing

May 11, 1995.
    Take notice that on April 4, 1995, Puget Sound Power & Light 
Company tendered for filing an Agreement Providing for Termination of 
Agreement for Assignment and for Exchange of Power between Puget and 
Public Utility District No. 1 of Grays Harbor County, Washington (the 
``District'') executed as of March 2, 1995 (the ``Exchange 
Agreement''). A copy of the filing was served upon the District.
    Puget states that the Exchange Agreement relates to the exchange 
and scheduling by Puget and the District of the District's Centralia 
Project output share, the sale by Puget to the District of reserve 
capacity, and the provision by Puget of certain associated services, 
all pursuant to the terms of the Exchange Agreement.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before May 23, 1995. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. Copies of the filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12060 Filed 5-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4

                                    AGREEMENT

1. Phillip C. Duncan ("Employee") is employed by Maxtor Corporation ("Company")
as its Executive Vice President, Human Resources and Real Estate. Company and
Employee have now agreed to continue and terminate their employment relationship
on the terms set forth below. This Agreement will become effective on and as of
July 19, 2004 ("Effective Date").

2. Company and Employee agree that Employee's employment with Company will
terminate ("Termination") on January 7, 2005 ("Termination Date"). On and as of
the Effective Date, Employee shall no longer serve as Executive Vice President,
Human Resources and Real Estate. On and after the Effective Date and through and
until the Termination Date, Employee shall report directly to Company's CEO and
President and perform such duties as are customarily associated with the
responsibilities of an Executive Vice President or senior executive and
Employee's title shall be Executive Vice President. Company and Employee
acknowledge and agree that the Executive Retention and Severance Agreement ("ERS
Agreement") is a valid and existing agreement by and between them. Company and
Employee further acknowledge and agree that Employee's Termination shall be
deemed to be an Involuntary Termination as defined in section 2.1 (r) of the ERS
Agreement.

3. Employee understands and acknowledges that only if Employee (i) executes and
does not revoke the Release (defined in the ERS Agreement) applicable to such
Employee at or following the Termination Date (ii) executes the Restrictive
Covenants Agreement (defined in the ERS Agreement) applicable to such Employee
and (iii) performs all other requirements provided for in the ERS Agreement
shall Employee be entitled to receive the severance payments and benefits set
forth in the ERS Agreement.

4. This Agreement, any proprietary rights or confidentiality agreements, any
stock option agreements or plans, and the ERS Agreement are the entire agreement
between the parties with respect to its subject matter and supersedes all prior
negotiations and agreements between the parties, whether written or oral. This
Agreement may not be waived, modified or amended except by a document signed by
an authorized officer of Company and Employee.

EMPLOYEE UNDERSTANDS THAT HE SHOULD CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY PRIOR TO SIGNING
THIS AGREEMENT. EMPLOYEE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE IS SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT
KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY.


                                       /s/ Phillip C. Duncan
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Phillip C. Duncan

                                       Maxtor Corporation

                                       By: /s/ John Viera
                                          --------------------------------------
                                             John Viera
Exhibit 10.8



Fiscal Year 2005

Discretionary Bonus Payments

for Sun Microsystems, Inc.s

Named Executive Officers



For fiscal 2005, Sun did not meet all its performance objectives. However, on July 28, 2005, in recognition of progress made during the past fiscal year and for employee retention purposes, Suns management and Board of Directors
approved a broad-based bonus with respect to fiscal 2005 under Suns SMI Bonus Plan (the Discretionary Bonus). Suns named executive officers received the following amounts under the Discretionary Bonus:



|                        |  |                                                                                |  |        |          
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------ | ---------
|Name                    |  | Position                                                                       |  | Amount
|Scott G. McNealy        |  | Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer                 |  | $      | 1,111,250
|                        |  |                                                                               
|Crawford W. Beveridge   |  | Executive Vice President, People and Places, and Chief Human Resources Officer |  | $      | 160,650  
|                        |  |                                                                               
|Stephen T. McGowan      |  | Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President, Corporate Resources      |  | $      | 177,013  
|                        |  |                                                                               
|Gregory M. Papadopoulos |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer                          |  | $      | 160,650  
|                        |  |                                                                               
|Jonathan I. Schwartz    |  | President and Chief Operating Officer                                          |  | $      | 280,000