alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE CONDENSED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          70,664
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  117,708
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    605,682
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               972,264
<PP&E>                                       1,189,289
<DEPRECIATION>                                 661,654
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,231,646
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,983,413
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 27,689,880
<COMMON>                                        32,919
<OTHER-SE>                                (25,589,771)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,231,646
<SALES>                                        123,204
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               123,204
<CGS>                                           65,750
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,492,628
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (1,949,444)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             159,361
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                313,441
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,543,184)
<DISCONTINUED>                               1,856,625
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   313,441
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)


</TABLE>
Stanley Lorenzo WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Beverly PERDUE, et al.

No. 12-9083.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Case 4:05-cr-00309-MJJ Document 35 Filed 10/05/05 Page 1 of 2Case 4:05-cr-00309-MJJ Document 35 Filed 10/05/05 Page 2 of 2
MIRROR WORLDS, INC., petitioner, v. APPLE INC.

No. 12-1158.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
803 Hearst Avenue, Berkeley CA 94710 ∙ www.ramsey-ehrlich.com ∙ Tel: (510) 548-3600 ∙ Fax: (510) 291-3060

June 13, 2017

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom F - 15th Floor

450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

Dear Magistrate Judge Corley:

On June 8, 2017, Waymo LLC filed a motion by letter brief that seeks to compel Stroz 

Friedberg, LLC to comply with a subpoena served by Waymo. Dkt. 570. On June 9, 2017, nonparty Anthony Levandowski filed a motion to intervene and quash that same subpoena to the 

extent it seeks records that are protected by Mr. Levandowski’s Fifth Amendment, common 

interest, attorney-client and work product privileges. Dkt. 583. Parties Uber Technologies, Inc. 

and Otto Trucking LLC also filed motions to quash. Dkt. 580 & 581.

Mr. Levandowski has already moved to intervene in this matter to contest Waymo’s 

subpoena to Stroz. Dkt. 583 at 1-3. For purposes of clarity, we ask the Court to extend the 

intervention to encompass the proceedings on Waymo’s motion to compel, which raises the same 

issues as Mr. Levandowski’s motion to quash. 

For the reasons set forth in Mr. Levandowski’s motion to quash, see Dkt. 583 at 3-8, Mr. 

Levandowski opposes Waymo’s motion to compel Stroz to produce the subpoenaed records. 

Mr. Levandowski also joins the arguments set forth in Parts I and III of Otto Trucking’s motion 

to quash Waymo’s subpoena, Dkt. 580, as well as the arguments in Uber’s motion to quash, Dkt. 

581. 

To the extent Waymo’s motion to compel asserts that the Court’s June 5, 2017 Order 

(Dkt. #566) already decided the issues pending in these motions, Mr. Levandowski disagrees. 

The Court’s June 5, 2017 Order addressed only Waymo’s motion to compel the Stroz Report and 

its exhibits. Waymo’s present motion seeks far more. For the reasons set forth in Mr. 

Levandowski’s motion to quash (Dkt. 583), Mr. Levandowski deserves the opportunity to be 

heard on those issues.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ismail J. Ramsey

Ismail Ramsey

RAMSEY & EHRLICH LLP

Counsel for Non-Party Anthony Levandowski

cc: Counsel of record (via ECF); Special Master John Cooper
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

RITA GEISLER and JOHN GEISLER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING 

PHARMACY, INC. d/b/a NEW 

ENGLAND COMPOUNDING CENTER, 

BARRY AND LISA CADDEN, and 

GREGORY CONIGLIARO,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:12-CV-823-RL-CAN

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Pursuant to L.R. 6.1., Defendants Barry and Lisa Cadden, and Greg Conigliaro 

(“Defendants”), by counsel, hereby move this Court for an extension of time to respond to 

Plaintiffs’ Complaint, up to and including April 19, 2013. Defendants’ Answer is currently due 

February 18, 2013. Plaintiffs’ counsel has been consulted and has no objection to the requested 

extension. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants, by counsel, pray for an Order allowing Defendants up to and 

including April 19, 2013 to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and for all other relief just and 

proper in the premises.

LEWIS WAGNER LLP

By: /s/ Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo

DINA M. COX, #18590-49

KAMEELAH SHAHEED-DIALLO, #28058-49

ROBERT M. BAKER IV, #25471-49

JANELLE M. KILIES, #30708-49

Attorneys for Defendants 

case 3:12-cv-00823-RL-CAN document 10 filed 02/14/13 page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on February 14, 2013 using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of this filing to the 

following: 

Douglas D. Small

FOLEY & SMALL

1002 E Jefferson Blvd

South Bend IN 46617

Counsel for Plaintiffs

/s/ Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo

KAMEELAH SHAHEED-DIALLO

LEWIS WAGNER, LLP

501 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200

Indianapolis, IN 46202

Phone: (317) 237-0500

FAX: (317) 630-2790

kshaheed-diallo@lewiswagner.com

Q:\NECC\22 - Geisler\Federal Pleadings\MET.docx

case 3:12-cv-00823-RL-CAN document 10 filed 02/14/13 page 2 of 2
Laura A. JENNINGS, petitioner, v. Chuck HAGEL, Secretary of Defense.

No. 12-10059.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11583]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[T.D. 8581]
RIN 1545-AQ87


Certain Cash or Deferred Arrangements and Employee and Matching 
Contributions Under Employee Plans; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final regulations (T.D. 
8581), which were published in the Federal Register for Friday, 
December 23, 1994, (59 FR 66165) relating to certain cash or deferred 
arrangements and employee and matching contributions under employee 
plans.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 23, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Livingston Fernandez (202) 
622-4606 (not a toll-free call).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final regulations that are the subject of this correction are 
under sections 401(a)(30), 401(k), 401(m), 402(a)(8), 402(g), 
411(d)(6), 415(c), 416, and 4979 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, T.D. 8581 contains an error which may prove to be 
misleading and is in need of clarification.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following 
correcting amendment:

PART 1--INCOME TAXES

    Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in 
part as follows:

    Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.401(k)-1 (h)(4)(ii) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 1.401(k)-1  Certain cash or deferred arrangements.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) The plan does not fail to satisfy the requirements of section 
401(a) merely because of the nonqualified cash or deferred arrangement.
    (B) Employer contributions under the nonqualified cash or deferred 
arrangement are considered to satisfy the requirements of section 
401(a)(4).
    (C) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(7) and (f) of this 
section, elective contributions under the arrangement are treated as 
employer contributions under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as if 
the arrangement were a qualified cash or deferred arrangement. See 
Sec. 1.401(k)-1(a)(4)(ii). See Sec. 1.402(a)-1(d) for rules governing 
when elective contributions under the arrangement are includible in an 
employee's gross income.
* * * * *
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 95-11583 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Jacqueline HILLMAN, petitioner, v. Judy A. MARETTA.

No. 11-1221.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 12, 2013.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
### 쫯멯심폋뫻셏쟉픻혐쫯읷펶밫퓿켗삏 XXXGEBHPWIFBMUIFRVJUZ 읷쨤줳탨탗퐟 ힿ샣 혐캼 샴뿣쫌헿샣몿 샴뿣쫌 짳쟇 폋켗 핯캼



### Office of Minority Health and Health Equity 캧풤숛퀓햃킰샃샟 샴뿣쫌픿퍎뫛햃삏샻쭻쭿핓캧얇싟폋몇삏 샴컄쾇짳쟇핯핯캼헼햀샃샟샴컄쾇맻 샴컄쾇멻캧쨖삏멾뫷펷쟃뺓햋훷쨖팿퍷 삏ힻ폋뫻폧샯샴핓웇ힿ뫷캼핓탨탗퐟



## 샴뿣쫌픿퓿샴컄쾇멻캧

## 샴뿣쫌픿퓿샴컄쾇멻캧

캧풤숛퀓햃킰샃샟 샴뿣쫌픿퍎뫛햃삏샻쭻쭿핓캧얇싟폋몇삏 샴컄쾇짳쟇핯핯캼헼햀샃샟샴컄쾇맻 샴컄쾇멻캧쨖삏멾뫷펷쟃뺓햋훷쨖팿퍷 삏ힻ폋뫻폧샯샴핓웇ힿ뫷캼핓탨탗퐟

쫯멯심폋뫻셏쟉픻혐쫯읷펶밫퓿켗삏 XXXGEBHPWIFBMUIFRVJUZ 읷쨤줳탨탗퐟 ힿ샣 샴컄쾇멻캧 혐캼 샴뿣쫌헿샣몿 샴뿣쫌 짳쟇 폋켗 핯캼


### Office of Minority Health and Health Equity

### 쫯멯심폋뫻셏쟉픻혐쫯읷펶밫퓿켗삏 XXXGEBHPWIFBMUIFRVJUZ 읷쨤줳탨탗퐟 ힿ샣 혐캼 샴뿣쫌헿샣몿 샴뿣쫌 짳쟇 폋켗

핯캼 

## 샴뿣쫌픿퓿샴컄쾇멻캧

Office of Minority Health and Health Equity 캧풤숛퀓햃킰샃샟 샴뿣쫌픿퍎뫛햃삏샻쭻쭿핓캧얇싟폋몇삏 샴컄쾇짳쟇핯핯캼헼햀샃샟샴컄쾇맻 샴컄쾇멻캧쨖삏멾뫷펷쟃뺓햋훷쨖팿퍷 삏ힻ폋뫻폧샯샴핓웇ힿ뫷캼핓탨탗퐟
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., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER RE EXCESSIVE

REDACTIONS

With respect to defendants’ administrative motion to shorten time for briefing and

hearing on their motion to compel arbitration, the Court first states its strong concern that the

memorandum in support of the motion to compel is overly redacted. Our federal courts belong

to the public, and the public and the press have a legitimate interest in looking over our

shoulders to see the work in progress in our courts. The essence of our work concerns

evaluating competing arguments. Parties should not hide those arguments under seal out of a

desire to shroud business dealings in secrecy. 

The Court intends to grant a measure of expedited hearing on the motion but before

doing so insists that the parties meet and confer and agree on a wholly public version of the

motion that is completely unredacted, or show good cause for maintaining privacy over any

specific portions. Please do so by MARCH 29 AT 5:00 P.M. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 120 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 2
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

2

This theme runs throughout the brief history of this case. Please do not claim privacy

over anything less than true trade secrets or other material clearly deserving to be under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 120 Filed 03/28/17 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), I, Thomas Willis, certify that:





1.
The Annual Report of Great Spirits, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof, 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.











Date:           December 21, 2010





/s/ Thomas Willis


Thomas Willis


Chief Financial Officer of


Great Spirits, Inc.








This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Great Spirits, Inc. and will be retained by Great Spirits, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00914

- CR

Alfredo LOPEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR3538

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED February 11, 2015.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam , Justice
Luis Flores MIRANDA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10369.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Stephen T. McGowan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Sun Microsystems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Sun Microsystems, Inc.



By:

/s/    STEPHEN T.
MCGOWANName: Stephen T. McGowan Title: Chief Financial Officer
Carl ROSE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-5379.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:12-CR-87-TLS

)

CRAIG WHIGUM )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 52] filed on May 8, 2013. The Defendant has waived objection to the

Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 52] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c),

the plea of guilty to the offenses charged in Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment are hereby accepted,

and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offenses. 

Any request for a sentence involving a departure under the United States Sentencing

Guidelines, or for a variance above or below a Guidelines sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),

with the exception of matters raised pursuant to §5K1.1 of the Guidelines, shall be communicated to

the probation officer and opposing counsel, in writing, within fourteen (14) days following initial

disclosure of the pre-sentence report. Any sentencing memorandum addressing these or any other

issues, including requests for a departure based on § 5K1.1, shall be filed with the Court no later

than seven (7) days prior to the sentencing hearing. The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence

scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate order.

SO ORDERED on May 24, 2013. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:12-CR-87-TLS

)

BRENTON ENNIS )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 51] filed on May 8, 2013. The Defendant has waived objection to the

Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 51] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c),

the plea of guilty to the offenses charged in Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment are hereby accepted,

and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offenses. 

Any request for a sentence involving a departure under the United States Sentencing

Guidelines, or for a variance above or below a Guidelines sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),

with the exception of matters raised pursuant to §5K1.1 of the Guidelines, shall be communicated to

the probation officer and opposing counsel, in writing, within fourteen (14) days following initial

disclosure of the pre-sentence report. Any sentencing memorandum addressing these or any other

issues, including requests for a departure based on § 5K1.1, shall be filed with the Court no later

than seven (7) days prior to the sentencing hearing. The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence

scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate order.

SO ORDERED on May 24, 2013. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1221** 

In R e: ANTHONY DOVE , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted : May 26 , 2016 Decided: May 31, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Anthony Dove, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Dove petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an
order compelling the State of North Carolina to allow him to file a new motion for appropriate relief. We conclude that Dove
is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U .S. Dist. Court , 426
U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509,
516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought.
In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass ’ n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.
1988)

. This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cnty. , 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and d oes not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 482
(1983). The relief sought by Dove is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
form a pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Jose Miguel VASQUEZ, petitioner, v. Fred KLIE.

No. 12-9788.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Maureen HAWES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-2151

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 07, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE

CR 16-0491 BLF 1

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 OF AMERICA NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

EDWIN ADRIAN ARROYO-RIVERA, 

 Defendant.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: CR 16-0491 BLF

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY ORDER OF 

FORFEITURE

Having considered the application for a preliminary order of forfeiture filed by the United States, 

and the plea agreement entered on September 14, 2017, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following property is forfeited to the United States pursuant 

to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853 and the procedures outlined in Rule 32.2 of the Federal 

Rules of Criminal Procedure:

• $12,627 in cash seized from the detached garage at 633 Cedar Ave., Wasco, California, on 

December 6, 2016.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States, through its appropriate agency, shall seize 

the forfeited property forthwith and publish for at least thirty days on the government website

www.forfeiture.gov a notice of this Order, notice of the government=s intent to dispose of the property in 
[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE

CR 16-0491 BLF 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

such manner as the Attorney General may direct, and notice that any person, other than the defendant, 

having or claiming a legal interest in the property must file a petition with the Court and serve a copy on 

government counsel within thirty (30) days of the final publication of notice or of receipt of actual 

notice, whichever is earlier;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, the government may conduct discovery, in order to identify, 

locate, or dispose of property subject to forfeiture, in accordance with Rule 32.2(b)(3) of the Federal 

Rules of Criminal Procedure; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, this Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the Preliminary 

Order of Forfeiture, and to amend it as necessary, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 

32.2(e). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED this _____ day of ________________ 2018. 

 _______________________________ 

 BETH LABSON FREEMAN

 United States District Judge

VW )HEUXDU\