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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 1997 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>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                         116
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  60
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               176
<PP&E>                                         7,317
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,091
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 402
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          17
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   402
<SALES>                                        197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               202
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                94
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            94
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   94
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  9.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  9.55
        


</TABLE>
Sean D. RALSTON, petitioner, v. Rick THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 12-8753.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

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

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

DECLARATION OF PATRICK SCHMIDT

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 

 Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) 

 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 

 David A. Perlson (Bar No. 209502) 

 davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com 

 Melissa Baily (Bar No. 237649) 

 melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com 

 John Neukom (Bar No. 275887) 

 johnneukom@quinnemanuel.com 

 Jordan Jaffe (Bar No. 254886) 

 jordanjaffe@quinnemanuel.com 

50 California Street, 22nd Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111-4788 

Telephone: (415) 875-6600 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

DECLARATION OF PATRICK 

SCHMIDT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF 

WAYMO’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN 

SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 

PRODUCTION OF WITHHELD 

DOCUMENTS 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 524-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 1 of 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

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

DECLARATION OF PATRICK SCHMIDT

/s/ Charles K. Verhoeven

I, Patrick Schmidt, hereby declare as follows. 

1. I am a member of the bar of the State of California and an associate with Quinn 

Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff Waymo LLC (“Waymo”). I make this 

declaration of personal, firsthand knowledge, and if called and sworn as a witness, I could and 

would testify competently as follows. 

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of a fully unredacted 

version of the February 22, 2016 executed term sheet related to the Otto acquisition produced by 

Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”). 

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of the Agreement and Plan 

of Merger related to the Otto acquisition produced by Uber. 

 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United 

States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed in 

Los Angeles, California, on May 30, 2017. 

DATED: May 30, 2017 /s/ Patrick Schmidt 

Patrick Schmidt 

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION 

 Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the 

filing of this document has been obtained from Patrick Schmidt. 

 

 Charles K. Verhoeven 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 524-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 2 of 2
Lawrence EVANS, petitioner, v. Thomas BIRKETT, Warden.

No. 12-10067.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 12, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:12-CR-83

)

JOSEPH R. TOPP )

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 July 31, 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 him to which the plea is

offered;

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

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his 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 his answers may later be used against him 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 the offense charged in the single-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 31st day of July, 2013.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
Michael A. BLANKENSHIP, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9229.

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.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00524

- CV

Rueben Mendoza

v.

Fort Worth Housing Authority and

Ameritex Security §

§

§

§ From t he 352nd District Court

o f Tarrant County ( 352

- 259031

- 12 )

April 4 , 2013

P er C uriam



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Reorganized
    
    
    PredecessorFor the Years Ended September 30,2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002Earnings to fixed charges
calculation (1)Income (loss) from continuing
operations before income taxes
    
    $
    25,006
    
    
    $
    18,504
    
    
    $
    7,495
    
    
    $
    (31,411
    )
    
    $
    (11,870
    )Fixed charges
    
    
    34,384
    
    
    
    34,392
    
    
    
    34,392
    
    
    
    48,407
    
    
    
    44,515$
    59,390
    
    
    $
    52,896
    
    
    $
    41,887
    
    
    $
    16,996
    
    
    $
    32,645Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    33,410
    
    
    $
    33,419
    
    
    $
    33,392
    
    
    $
    47,445
    
    
    $
    43,466Interest portion of rent expense.
    
    
    974
    
    
    
    973
    
    
    
    1,000
    
    
    
    962
    
    
    
    1,049$
    34,384
    
    
    $
    34,392
    
    
    $
    34,392
    
    
    $
    48,407
    
    
    $
    44,515Ratio of earning to fixed charges
    
    
    1.73
    
    
    
    1.54
    
    
    
    1.22
    
    
    
    N/A
    (2)
    
    
    N/A
    (2)
 
 (1)
    
    For purposes of the computation, the ratio of earnings to fixed charges has been calculated
by dividing (a) income from continuing operations before income taxes plus fixed charges by
(b) fixed charges. Fixed charges are equal to interest expense plus the portion of the rent
expense estimated to represent interest.(2)
    
    Earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges for the years ended September 30, 2003 and
2002 by $31.4 million, and $11.9 million, respectively.
Case 5:17-cv-00771-EJD Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 5
Case 5:17-cv-00771-EJD Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 2 of 5
Case 5:17-cv-00771-EJD Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 3 of 5
Case 5:17-cv-00771-EJD Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 4 of 5
Case 5:17-cv-00771-EJD Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 5 of 5
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000596 31-AUG-2018 10:51 AM
In re Ahmad Mohammad AJAJ, petitioner.

No. 12-9603.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of mandamus dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Jose Rafael PEREZ-PEREZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9842.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6842

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRY LEE ROSEBORO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:00-cr-00014-RLV-1)

Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 26, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Lee Roseboro, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; H. 

Thomas Church, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Washington, 

DC; C. Nicks Williams, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terry Lee Roseboro appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Roseboro, No. 5:00-cr-00014-RLV-1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 23, 2012). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0268

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

DESIRAE ELLEN MCDONOUGH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 28, 2020, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 21 2020

08/21/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0268
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:13-CR-030 JD

)

FRANCISCO PEREZ (01) )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation upon

a plea of guilty issued on May 2, 2013 [DE 30]. Accordingly, the court now ADOPTS those

findings and recommendations, ACCEPTS defendant Francisco Perez’s plea of guilty, and FINDS

the defendant guilty of Count 1 of the Indictment, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: May 31, 2013 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court
Office of Global Policy and Strategy 

OGPS STATEMENT

May 9, 2023

Japanese Officials Meet with FDA 

to Discuss Future Collaborations 

Today, FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, M.D., and other FDA officials met with a 

delegation of Japanese officials, led by Yasuhiro Fujiwara, M.D., Ph.D., Chief Executive 

of the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA). The meeting, which took 

place at FDA Headquarters in White Oak, Maryland, focused on how the two regulatory 

counterparts can collaborate moving forward. 

Other FDA attendees at the meeting with the commissioner included Andi Fristedt, 

Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Legislation, and International Affairs; Mark Abdoo, 

Associate Commissioner for Global Policy and Strategy; and Sema Hashemi, Senior 

International Policy Advisor in the Office of Global Policy and Strategy. 

Earlier in the day, the Japanese delegation participated in a series of meetings with 

officials from the Oncology Center of Excellence, the Center for Drug Evaluation and 

Research, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and the Center for Devices 

and Radiological Health. 

Accompanying Dr. Fujiwara were Junko Sato, Director, Office of International Programs 

(OIP); Shinichi Okudaira, Division Director, Division of International Cooperation, OIP; 

and Hayato Kume, First Secretary, Embassy of Japan. 

###
In re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS.

No. 12M140.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted.
EXHIBIT 23.1




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (i) on Form S-3 (No. 333-163866) of Retail Opportunity Investments Corp., and in the related Prospectus and; (ii)  on Form S-8 (No. 333-170692) pertaining to the Retail Opportunity Investments Corp. 2009 Equity Incentive Plan, of our reports dated February 25, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of Retail Opportunity Investments Corp., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Retail Opportunity Investments Corp., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2010.
  /s/ Ernst & Young LLPNew York, New YorkFebruary 25, 2011
Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Cinnabar Ventures Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ending May 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephanie Wood,
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
25th day of July, 2008.


/s/ Stephanie Wood
---------------------------------
Principal Financial Officer
James C. McWHORTER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10380.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
USDC IN/ND case 4:13-cv-00067-JD-JEM document 1 filed 08/23/13 page 1 of 6
USDC IN/ND case 4:13-cv-00067-JD-JEM document 1 filed 08/23/13 page 2 of 6
USDC IN/ND case 4:13-cv-00067-JD-JEM document 1 filed 08/23/13 page 3 of 6
USDC IN/ND case 4:13-cv-00067-JD-JEM document 1 filed 08/23/13 page 4 of 6
USDC IN/ND case 4:13-cv-00067-JD-JEM document 1 filed 08/23/13 page 5 of 6
USDC IN/ND case 4:13-cv-00067-JD-JEM document 1 filed 08/23/13 page 6 of 6
Robert SARTORI, petitioner, v. NORTH CAROLINA.

No. 12-9799.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of North Carolina, Buncombe County, denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7394

JO ANN DIMOND,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON,

Attorney General of the State of South

Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-95-3678-2-23AJ)

Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jo Ann Dimond, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying

relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended

by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.

No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and denying her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Additionally, we have determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's

motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. Dimond v. South Carolina, No. CA-95-3678-2-23AJ

(D.S.C. July 19, 1996; Aug. 13, 1996). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CR-32 RM 

)

ADAM C. SNYDER )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations upon a plea of guilty issued on August 1, 2013. Accordingly, the

court ADOPTS those findings and recommendations [docket # 32], ACCEPTS

defendant Adam Snyder’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant guilty of Count

1 of the Indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: August 22, 2013 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge, United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana
#### Doricod Ufani EPIE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-1955.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 23, 2004.

Decided May 6, 2004.

Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Lisa M. Arnold, Office of Immigration Litigation, • United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Doricod Ufani Epie, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

On appeal, Epie raises challenges to the immigration judge’s determination that he *872failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Epie fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief Epie seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Epie’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate “a clear probability of persecution.” *INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,*480 U.S. 421, 430-31, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). To obtain relief under the Convention Against Torture, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2003). Based on our review of the record, we find that Epie has failed to meet either one of these standards.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*