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., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

NOTICE RE IMPENDING

DECISIONS AND PROMPT

SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED

REDACTIONS

Counsel are advised that orders on the pending motions for provisional relief and to

compel arbitration will very likely be filed this week. At least one of them will be filed

temporarily under seal to give counsel a brief opportunity to suggest redactions in addition to

those the Court will use (in a duplicate redacted version, also under seal). The redacted version

will then be made public. Redactions should be proposed only where truly necessary and

should be assessed on a word by word basis. If the Court refuses to accept a redaction proposed

by either side, then a brief opportunity to seek mandamus will be allowed. The main purpose of

this short notice is a courtesy for planning purposes. 

Dated: May 9, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 403 Filed 05/09/17 Page 1 of 1
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

MARTIN DULBERG, individually, and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and RASIER,

LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00850-WHA

REQUEST FOR

INFORMATION

The Court thanks the parties for providing the requested individual settlement

information as to plaintiff Martin Dulberg (Dkt. No. 148). If we excluded all drivers from the

class whose checks would be less than the cost of the postage plus administrative cost to

process, and then distributed those funds as part of the settlement to everyone else, how many

class members would remain and what would be the average recovery? Use a ballpark estimate

for the administrative cost and postage calculation at this stage. Please answer by Tuesday at

NOON.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2019. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00850-WHA Document 149 Filed 04/28/19 Page 1 of 1
Alix FORMILIEN, petitioner, v. BEAU DIETL & ASSOCIATES, INC.

No. 12M126.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
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

TENTATIVE ORDER RE

ACCESS TO UNDER-SEAL

MATERIAL

(To Be Discussed at the

Conference on March 16)

Plaintiff Waymo LLC seeks sweeping provisional relief to enjoin defendants from

exploiting trade secrets and patent rights allegedly stolen from plaintiff. Many passages in the

moving papers have been filed under seal by plaintiff, who allegedly refuses to provide the

under-seal material to defense counsel unless defense counsel agrees not to disclose the

information to their clients, even in-house counsel.

This is an unreasonable condition, if true, imposed by plaintiff. First, if the allegations

in the complaint are true, then defendants already know the sensitive information. Second, if a

preliminary injunction is granted in this case it will have to specify the sensitive information

that can no longer be used and in-house counsel will need to know what is verboten in order to

enforce it faithfully. Union Pac. R.R. v. Mower, 219 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2000); Patriot

Homes, Inc. v. Forest River Hous., Inc., 512 F.3d 412, 414–15 (7th Cir. 2008); Schmidt v.

Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 476–77 (1974). Third, at all events defendants need this information

shared with in-house counsel to prepare their defense.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 53 Filed 03/15/17 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

Defense counsel shall be allowed to share under-seal information with one in-house

counsel, once vetted and approved by the Court, who must subscribe faithfully in advance to

this district’s standard protective order. We will vet the proposed in-house counsel tomorrow.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 53 Filed 03/15/17 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Winthrop
Residential Associates III, A Limited Partnership and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>      1

       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                  963,000
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              0
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        3,864,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         0
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                              968,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          3,864,000
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        282,000
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           168,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       49,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          39,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      39,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                             39,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              1.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                              1.44
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Ramon MARTINEZ-ALVARADO, also known as Juan Ramon Martinez-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-41478

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 21, 2004.

Paula Camille Offenhauser, Assistant US Attorney, James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Darrell L. Bryan, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Ramon Martinez-Alvarado appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Martinez-Alvarado contends that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions *188of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. He therefore argues that his conviction must be reduced to one under the lesser included offense found in 8 U.S.C. § 1362(a), his judgment must be reformed to reflect a conviction only under that provision, and his sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing to no more than two years’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release.

In *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 239-47. Martinez-Alvarado acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres,*but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review.

*Apprendi*did not overrule *AlmendarezTorres. See Apprendi,*530 U.S. at 489-90; *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This court must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *Dabeit,*231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 3, 2017

p0131 

# Order

Clerk February 3, 2017

154247

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 154247

COA: 322473

Muskegon CC: 12

- 061794

- FH

JOSHUA LEVI ALGER,

Defendant

- Appellee.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 16, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment

holding that a defect in the plea proceeding occurred requiring the trial court to permit the

defendant to withdraw his pleas. Where the defenda nt knowingly pleaded no contest

being aware of the maximum possible prison sentences he was facing, he did not

establish that an error occurred in the plea proceeding that would entitle him to have his

plea set aside. MCR 6.310(C). We REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for

consideration of the coercion issue left unaddressed by that court. If the Court of Appeals

determines that the issue lacks merit, in light of the prosecutor’s concession that the

defendant is properly characterized as a third ha bitual offender, it shall remand this case

to the Muskegon Circuit Court and order that the defendant be resentenced as a third

habitual offender.

In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Tom JEFFREY; Traci Jeffrey; Jessica Jeffrey, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE BELLS ISD; Don Dexheimer; Randy Workman; E.T. Pettit; Jim Adlof; Brian Haase; Brent Adams; Billy Neal, Jr.; Joe Moore; Ray Smith, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-40879.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 7, 2004.

Pamela Ann McGraw, McGraw *&*Associates, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Thomas Phillip Brandt, John Francis Roehm, III, Robert Harris Fugate, Fanning, Harper & Martinson, Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM*

AFFIRMED. *See*5th Cir. R. 47.6.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMUNITY STATE BANK,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12-cv-425

OPINION and ORDER

This case was originally filed in Indiana State court and stated a single state-law cause of

action for retaliatory discharge. Plaintiff then amended his Complaint to add a second count

under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”). 

This second count established a basis for federal jurisdiction and Defendant thus timely removed

the case to this Court on November 28, 2012. Defendant then filed a Motion to Dismiss [DE 17]

the Dodd-Frank Act count. Plaintiff’s Response to this motion concedes that he has failed to

state a cognizable claim under the Dodd-Frank Act. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

[DE 17] is GRANTED and Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE. 

With the federal cause of action now gone from the case, both parties concede that the

case should be remanded to the state court to handle the remaining state law claim. A district

court has discretion to remand a properly removed case to state court if all federal law claims in

the case have been eliminated and only supplemental state law claims remain. Carnegie-Mellon

Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). In order to decide whether to exercise jurisdiction

over state law claims, a district court should consider and weigh the factors of judicial economy,

case 1:12-cv-00425-PPS-RBC document 20 filed 02/08/13 page 1 of 2
convenience, fairness, and comity. Id. 

The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly expressed its preference that district courts remand

cases when no federal claims remain. See, e.g., Leister v. Dovetail, Inc., 546 F.3d 875, 882 (7th

Cir. 2008) (“When the federal claim in a case drops out before trial, the presumption is that the

district judge will relinquish jurisdiction over any supplemental claim to the state courts.”);

Contreras v. Suncast Corp., 237 F.3d 756, 766 (7th Cir. 2001); Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193

F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1999); Wright v. Associated Ins. Cos., 29 F.3d 1244, 1252 (7th Cir.

1994); Carr v. CIGNA Sec., Inc., 95 F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir. 1996). Given this precedent, there is

no question that remanding this case is the best option. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1447(c), this case is hereby REMANDED to the Noble Superior Court, in Noble County,

Indiana, for redocketing under Indiana state court case number 57D01-1208-PL-008. The Clerk

shall treat this civil action as TERMINATED. All further settings in this action are hereby

VACATED.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: February 8, 2013

s/ Philip P. Simon

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

case 1:12-cv-00425-PPS-RBC document 20 filed 02/08/13 page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-12

)

MARSHALL BUTLER )

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 9, 2014, 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 Count 5 of the 44-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 9th day of October, 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
First Declaration of Amendment to Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan II



 Exhibit 10.5 
 H.B. FULLER COMPANY 
 SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN II—2008 
 First Declaration of Amendment 
 Pursuant to
Section 6.10 of the H.B. Fuller Company Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan II—2008, the Company hereby amends Section 6.1A(2) of the Plan as follows: 
 “(2) Final Average Compensation shall be determined by including amounts that would have been treated as compensation under the
pension plan, but for the fact that the Participant elected to defer payment of such amounts pursuant to the H.B. Fuller Company Key Employee Deferred Compensation Plan; provided, that a deferral of compensation for services rendered on or after
January 1, 2009 will only be included in Final Average Compensation to the extent the compensation deferred would have exceeded the limitation imposed by Section 401(a)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code had it been paid to the Participant.
Deferred compensation shall only be treated as compensation when it would have been received by a Participant had it not been deferred. Payments to a Participant from the H.B. Fuller Company Key Employee Deferred Compensation Plan will not be
included in determining the Participant’s Final Average Compensation.” 
 This Amendment shall be effective as of January 1, 2009. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized officers this 15th day of December, 2008. 
  

	
	H.B. FULLER COMPANY
	
	 /s/ Michele Volpi

	President and Chief Executive Officer
LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, et al., petitioners, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION.

No. 12-852.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 22414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11093]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences; Committee of 
Visitors; Meeting

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

    Name Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences; Committee of 
Visitors.
    Date and Time: Monday, May 22 through Tuesday, May 23, 1995; 
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: The National Science Foundation, Rooms 310 and 320, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. James H. Brown, Division Director for 
Biological Instrumentation and Resources, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. 
Telephone: 703-306-1470.
    Purpose of Meeting: To carry out Committee of Visitors (COV) 
review, including examination of decisions on proposals, reviewer 
comments, and other privileged materials.
    Agenda: To provide oversight review of the Special Projects 
Programs in the Division of Biological Instrumentation and 
Resources.
    Reason for Closing: The meeting is closed to the public because 
the Committee is reviewing proposal actions that will include 
privileged intellectual property and personal information that could 
harm individuals if they are disclosed. If discussions were open to 
the public, these matters that are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) 
and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act would be improperly 
disclosed.

M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
    Dated: May 1, 1995.
[FR Doc. 95-11093 Filed 5-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1998
<CASH>                                         656,765
<SECURITIES>                                   357,098
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,675,899
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    476,471
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,754,565
<PP&E>                                       2,040,090
<DEPRECIATION>                                 901,382
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,171,245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,809,846
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,223,762
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,171,245
<SALES>                                      6,909,775
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,909,775
<CGS>                                        3,300,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,182,149
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                760,760
<INCOME-TAX>                                   270,886
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            489,874
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   489,874
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.24
        

</TABLE>