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

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;

OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO

TRUCKING LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER OVER

DUE DILIGENCE REPORT

On September 13, the Federal Circuit rejected non-party Anthony Levandowski’s

petition to prevent production of a due diligence report prepared by non-party Stroz Friedberg. 

The Federal Circuit’s opinion specifically did not decide “whether the District Court may

choose to preserve the Stroz Report’s confidentiality until its status in any criminal proceeding

is resolved.” The public visibility of the due diligence report will impact how we proceed with

trial starting on October 10. Any motion for a protective order over the due diligence report

must therefore be filed by SEPTEMBER 19 AT NOON, with responses due by SEPTEMBER 21 AT

NOON and replies due by SEPTEMBER 22 AT NOON. Failure to so move will be deemed a

waiver of any and all argument to keep the due diligence report confidential in this civil action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1596 Filed 09/15/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

WALTER SNYDER AND

DONNA SNYDER, 

 PLAINTIFFS, 

 VS. 

CATERPILLAR, INC.,

GUARDAIR CORPORATION,

JOHN DOE, AND RICHARD ROE, 

 DEFENDANTS. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-376-RLM-JEM

O R D E R 

 On July 29, 2013, Magistrate Judge John E. Martin entered a report and 

recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) & (C), recommending 

that defendant Caterpillar, Inc.’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, 

motion for more definite statement be denied as moot. The parties had 14 days 

after being served with a copy of the recommendation to file any objections, 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and those 14 days have passed with no objections being 

filed. The court now accepts the magistrate judge’s recommendation (Doc. No. 

26) and DENIES as moot defendant Caterpillar, Inc.’s motion to dismiss, or in 

the alternative, motion for more definite statement (Doc. No. 6). 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: August 26, 2013 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

 Judge 

 United States District Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-22

)

LIZBETH CORREA )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

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

on October 17, 2013, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

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

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

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

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

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

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

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands her right to trial by jury, to persist in her plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
her right against compelled self-incrimination;

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

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

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

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

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

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that her answers may later be used against her in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

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

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of Count 6 as charged in the six-count Indictment, and have sentence

imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and Recommendation be

accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled before Judge Theresa

L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are

waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 17th day of October, 2013.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

DIANA ROHRER, Individually and 

DIANA ROHRER and 

DAWN CUBBERNUSS 

as Co-Administrators of the 

ESTATE OF DANIEL RICHARD 

ROHRER, Deceased, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING 

PHARMACY INC. aka NEW ENGLAND 

COMPOUNDING CENTER, et al. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00749-JTM-CAN

AMERIDOSE, LLC’S CORPORATE 

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

Defendant Ameridose, LLC, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, makes the 

following corporate disclosure: 

Ameridose does not have any parent corporations and no publicly-held corporation owns 

10% or more of Ameridose’s stock. 

Dated this 14th day of January, 2013 

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Knight S. Anderson 

Knight S. Anderson (17216-53) 

Tucker Ellis LLP 

925 Euclid Avenue 

Suite 1150 

Cleveland, OH 44115-1414 

Tel: 216.592.5000 

Fax: 216.592.5009 

E-mail: knight.anderson@tuckerellis.com 

Attorney for Defendant Ameridose LLC

case 3:12-cv-00749-JTM-CAN document 13 filed 01/14/13 page 1 of 2
2 

1604267.1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

on January 14, 2013 using the ECF system that sent notification of this filing to all ECFregistered counsel of record via e-mail generated by the Court’s ECF system. 

 /s/Knight S. Anderson 

Attorney for Defendant Ameridose, LLC 

case 3:12-cv-00749-JTM-CAN document 13 filed 01/14/13 page 2 of 2
Angelica Maria RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9812.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Taras LaFrance EDWARDS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9796.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 12, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 45013 & 45014

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JUAN RODRIGUEZ, JR., aka JOHNNY 

RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 685

Filed: December 28, 2017

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Canyon County. Hon. Bradly S. Ford, District Judge. 

Judgments of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of ten years, with 

minimum periods of confinement of two years, for two counts of felony driving 

under the influence, affirmed. 

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

In these consolidated cases, Juan Rodriguez, Jr., aka Johnny Rodriguez pled guilty to two 

counts of felony driving under the influence. I.C. §§ 18-8004 and 18-8005. In exchange for his 

guilty pleas, additional charges including an allegation that Rodriguez was a persistent violator

were dismissed. The district court sentenced Rodriguez to concurrent unified terms of ten years, 

with minimum periods of confinement of two years. Rodriguez filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which 
2

the district court denied. Rodriguez appeals arguing that the district court should have retained 

jurisdiction.

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 

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). Whether to retain jurisdiction is a matter within the sound 

discretion of the district court. State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. 

App. 1990). Probation is the ultimate goal of retained jurisdiction. State v. Jones, 141 Idaho 

673, 677, 115 P.3d 764, 768 (Ct. App. 2005). There can be no abuse of discretion if the district 

court has sufficient evidence before it to conclude that the defendant is not a suitable candidate 

for probation. Id.

Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that 

the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Rodriguez’s judgments of conviction and 

sentences are affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAND 435 

(CAND Rev. 02/2015)

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

Please use one form per court reporter. 

 CJA counsel please use Form CJA24

Please read instructions on next page.

1a. CONTACT PERSON FOR THIS ORDER 2a. CONTACT PHONE NUMBER 3. CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS1b. ATTORNEY NAME (if different) 2b. ATTORNEY PHONE NUMBER 3. ATTORNEY EMAIL ADDRES4. MAILING ADDRESS (INCLUDE LAW FIRM NAME, IF APPLICABLE) 5. CASE NAME 

8. THIS TRANSCRIPT ORDER IS FOR: 

7. COURT REPORTER NAME ( FOR FTR, LEAVE BLANK AND CHECK BOX)ȹ ޫ FTR 倯 APPEAL

倯 NON-APPEAL 

倯 CRIMINAL 倯 CIVIL 

倯 In forma pauperis (NOTE: Court or

 CJA: Do not use this form; use Form C

9. TRANSCRIPT(S) REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested), format(s) & quantity and delivery type: 

a. HEARING(S) (OR PORTIONS OF HEARINGS) b. SELECT FORMAT(S) (NOTE: ECF access is included

with purchase of PDF, text, paper or condensed.)

c . DELIVERY TYP

DATE JUDGE 

(initials)

TYPE 

(e.g. CMC) 

PORTION

If requesting less than full hearing, 

specify portion (e.g. witness or time)

PDF

(email) 

TEXT/ASCII

(email) 

PAPER CONDENSED 

(email) 

ECF ACCESS

(web) 

ORDINARY

(30-day) 

14-Day EX

F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F 

10. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, INSTRUCTIONS, QUESTIONS, ETC:ORDER & CERTIFICATION (11. & 12.) By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges (deposit plus additional). 12. DAT11. SIGNATURE DISTRIBUTION: 倯 COURT COPY 倯 TRANSCRIPTION COPY 倯 ORDER RECEIPT 

✔

	


  
 
      ● ● ●
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:12-CV-27

)

KURT A. SUTTON, TOMMY E. )

SUTTON, and STEVEN L. MCATEE, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

On November 30, 2012, a status conference in this matter was held and concluded. 

(Docket # 21.) The case was originally brought by the United States of America against

Defendants Kurt Sutton, Tommy Sutton, and Steven McAtee for their alleged trespass on and

damage to federal property, but those claims have been dismissed.1 (Docket # 19.) As such, all

that remains are the various cross-claims of the Suttons against McAtee and McAtee against the

Suttons. But all of these claims are state law claims, over which the Court lacks an independent

basis of jurisdiction as all the Defendants are Indiana citizens and the amount of controversy

falls well below $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (setting forth the requirements for exercising

diversity jurisdiction). 

And these state law claims may not be “related to” the claims of the United States, now

dismissed, such “that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the

United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Federal and state law claims are considered

1

 The Court originally had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345. 

1

case 1:12-cv-00027-JTM-RBC document 22 filed 11/30/12 page 1 of 2
part of the same case or controversy if they derive from a “common nucleus of operative facts.” 

Villareal v. El Chile, Inc., 601 F. Supp. 2d 1011, 1018 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (citing City of Chicago v.

Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 164-65 (1997)); accord Sanchez & Daniels v. Koresko,

503 F.3d 610, 614 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Consequently, the question arises whether this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over

the remaining cross-claims, and, if so, whether it should decline to exercise that jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Accordingly, counsel may file briefs arguing that the Court has

supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of this case and that, under the factors listed in 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c), it should exercise that jurisdiction.2

 Any such briefs are to be filed on or

before December 21, 2012. 

SO ORDERED.

Entered this 30th day of November, 2012.

/S/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2

 If the case is ultimately dismissed for either lack of jurisdiction or because the Court declined to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction, Indiana’s Journey Account State, Ind. Code § 34-11-8-1, is potentially applicable to toll

the statute of limitations that may affect the ability of the Suttons or McAtee to refile their claims in state court. See

Dempsey v. Belanger, 959 N.E.2d 861, 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (stating that the Journey’s Account Statute

“provides for continuation when a plaintiff fails to obtain a decision on the merits for some reason other than his own

neglect and the statute of limitations expires while his suit is pending”). 

2

case 1:12-cv-00027-JTM-RBC document 22 filed 11/30/12 page 2 of 2
---

---

Exhibit 13.2

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report
on Form 20-F of Guildhall Minerals Ltd. (the Company) for the year ended March
31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), that I, Terence Kwan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company ,
certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code 18
U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge:

|1. | The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 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: September 10, 2008

| |  | /s/ Terence Kwan 
Terence KwanVice- President Finance and Chief Financial Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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



---

---
** **

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

 

 

Form 10-Q

 

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLYREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934

 

 

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-11767

 

 

ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD.II

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

 

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

 

(864) 239-1000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  

[X]Yes [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26040-26041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11941]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings:

Name of Committee: National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney 
Diseases Special Grants Review Committee, Subcommittee B
Date: June 18-19, 1995
Time: June 18, 4 p.m.-9 p.m.; June 19, 8 a.m.-adjournment
Place: Embassy Suites Hotel, 1300 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Arlington, VA 22202
Contact Person: Michael W. Edwards, Ph. D., Natcher Building, Room 
6AS-37, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-
6600, Phone: 301-594-8892
Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate research grant applications.

Name of Committee: National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney 
Diseases Special Grants Review Committee, Subcommittee C
Date: June 15-16, 1995
Time: June 15, 8:30 a.m.-7 p.m.; June 16, 8:30 a.m.-adjournment
Place: Marriott BWI Airport Hotel, 1743 W. Nursery Road, Baltimore, 
Maryland 21240
Contact Person: Daniel Matsumoto, Ph.D., Natcher Building, Room 6AS-
37B, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-6600, 
Phone: 301-594-8894
Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate research grant applications.

[[Page 26041]] Name of Committee: National Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Grants Review Committee, Subcommittee D
Date: June 16, 1995
Time: June 16, 8:30 a.m.-adjournment
Place: Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland 20852
Contact Person: Ann A. Hagan, Ph.D., Natcher Building, Room 6AS-43G, 
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-6600, Phone: 
301-594-8891
Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate research grant applications.

    The meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and the discussions could reveal confidential trade 
secrets or commercial property, such as patentable material, and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.847-849, 
Diabetes, Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases; Digestive Diseases and 
Nutrition; and Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, 
National Institutes of Health)

    Dated: May 8, 1995.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 95-11941 Filed 5-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M