alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

Case No. 4:17-cv-00755-CW 

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

John M. Shoreman 

McFadden & Shoreman LLC

1050 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20036

jmshoreman@verizon.net

Tel: 202-772-3188

Counsel for Defendant Libre by Nexus, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN QUINTANILLA VASQUEZ GABRIELA ) Case No. 4:17-cv-755-CW

PERDOMO ORTIZ, and VICTOR HUGO )

CATALAN MOLINA, individually and on behalf ) DEFENDANTS’

) RESPONSE TO 

) MOTION TO SHOW

of all others similarly situated, ) CAUSE WHY

) DEFENDANTS 

Plaintiffs, ) SHOULD NOT BE 

) HELD IN CIVIL

v. ) CONTEMPT

)

LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC and JOHN DOES )

1-50, )

)

Defendants. )

In Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Show Cause why Defendants should not 

be Held in Civil Contempt and Sanctioned, Defendants hereby submit the following 

statement of the management of Libre by Nexus, Inc. and pray this Court deny 

Plaintiffs’ Motion in its entirety.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 219 Filed 08/25/22 Page 1 of 5
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. 4:17-cv-00755-CW 

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Dated: August 25, 2022. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John M. Shoreman 

John Shoreman

 Counsel for Defendant Libre by Nexus

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 219 Filed 08/25/22 Page 2 of 5
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 219 Filed 08/25/22 Page 3 of 5
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 219 Filed 08/25/22 Page 4 of 5
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 219 Filed 08/25/22 Page 5 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) Case No. 3:13-CR-7 RM

)

RAYMOND T. ALGER )

ORDER

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

recommendation upon a plea of guilty issued on February 5, 2013 [Doc. No. 9]. 

Accordingly, the court now ADOPTS those findings and recommendation,

ACCEPTS defendant Raymond Alger’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant

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

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: March 4, 2013 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Thomas Dale HANLIN, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-7906.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 2004.

Decided May 4, 2004.

Thomas Dale Hanlin, Jr., Appellant pro se. James Gerard Pyne, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Dale Hanlin, Jr. appeals the district court’s order denying his motion “for Order Directing Attorney of Record to Surrender Defense File.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. *See United States v. Hanlin,*No. CR-99-583 (D.Md. Nov. 25, 2003). 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*
Maurice Jerome McDONALD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-8270.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 30, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Eugene E. ISAACSON, petitioner, v. Shawn BERRIGAN, et al.

No. 12-8783.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT31.4**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302(A) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Robert A. Waegelein,Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/Aof Universal American Corp. for the quarter ended September 30, 2009; and

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report.

 

 
| December 7, 2009                                   |     |
|---------------------------------------------------------|----------|
|                                                    |     |
| /s/ Robert A. Waegelein                                 |     |
| Robert A.  Waegelein                                    |     |
| *Executive  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer* | * * |

 

----
UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INCORPORATED OF PUERTO RICO, et al., petitioners, v. UNION DE EMPLEADOS MUELLES DE PUERTO RICO PRSSA WELFARE PLAN, et al.

No. 12-1208.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

*2858Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted.
Devaughn DORSEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-6571.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 18-0501

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

SHAWN MARIE WALSTON,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to the Court sitting en banc. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Brenda Gilbert, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 24 2020

06/24/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0501
Rashaun GEE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10386.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
Nixon v. Blumenthal, No. 3:17-cv-00937-SK

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order for Dismissal - 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

DAN SIEGEL, SBN 56400

EMILYROSE JOHNS, SBN 294319

SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA

475 14th Street, Suite 500

Oakland, California 94612

Telephone: (510) 839-1200

Facsimile: (510) 444-6698

Attorneys for Plaintiff

LORI NIXON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORI NIXON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GEORGE R. BLUMENTHAL, 

CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:17-cv-00937-SK

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL (Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii))

Judge: The Honorable Sallie Kim

Action Filed: February 23, 2017

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

The parties have reached a resolution in this matter. The parties therefore 

stipulate that the court should dismiss this matter with prejudice under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and order that the parties will bear their own attorneys’ 

fees and costs. 

///

///

///

Case 3:17-cv-00937-SK Document 74 Filed 11/24/20 Page 1 of 3
Nixon v. Blumenthal, No. 3:17-cv-00937-SK

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order for Dismissal - 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

SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: November 24, 2020

SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA

By:_/s/EmilyRose Johns________

 EmilyRose Johns

Attorneys for Plaintiff

LORI NIXON

Dated: November 24, 2020

VENABLE LLP

By: _/s/ Jean-Paul Cart_____

 Jean-Paul Cart

Attorneys for Defendant

GEORGE R. BLUMENTHAL

Case 3:17-cv-00937-SK Document 74 Filed 11/24/20 Page 2 of 3
Nixon v. Blumenthal, No. 3:17-cv-00937-SK

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order for Dismissal - 3

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

PROPOSED ORDER

Based on the parties’ stipulation, the court hereby orders that this matter be 

dismissed with prejudice, and that each party to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November __, 2020

___________________________

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00937-SK Document 74 Filed 11/24/20 Page 3 of 3
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1336 

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to clarify 

the classification of laser light sources for semiconductor manufacturing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2005 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States to clarify the classification of laser light sources 

for semiconductor manufacturing. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TARIFF CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LASER 

4 LIGHT SOURCES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 90 of the Harmonized 

6 Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by strik7 ing subheading 9010.49.00 and inserting the following 

8 new subheadings and superior text thereto, with such su9 perior text having the same degree of indentation as the 

10 article description for subheading 9010.42.00: 
2 

•HR 1336 IH 

‘‘ Other: 

9010.49.10 Laser light sources .......................... Free 35% 

9010.49.20 Other ............................................... Free 35% ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made ap2 plies to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 

3 consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of 

4 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------

                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWABS, INC.
                  CWABS ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES TRUST 2007-13
                    ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-13


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.17 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                     Dated: March 14, 2008
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
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 District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMANDO ABREU,

Petitioner,

v.

R. BINKELE,

Respondent.

Case No. 17-cv-00870-HSG (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On February 22, 2017, petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. That same day, the court sent a notification to petitioner, 

informing him that he did not pay the filing fee, nor did he file a complete application to proceed 

in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The court provided petitioner with a blank IFP application, along with 

a notification that the case would be dismissed if petitioner failed to pay the fee, or file a 

completed application with supporting documentation within twenty-eight days. More than 

twenty-eight days have passed, and petitioner has not paid the filing fee. Petitioner also has not 

filed a completed application to proceed IFP.

Accordingly, the instant action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter 

judgment and close the file.

The Court notes that petitioner has filed two documents entitled “Notice of Appeal” in this 

action. It appears that petitioner may be trying to appeal the dismissal of his petition in Case No.

C 17-0117 JCS (PR). If that is the case, petitioner should move to dismiss the appeal in this action
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42 and re-file his notice of appeal using the 

caption and civil case number in C 17-0117 JCS (PR). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

4/20/2017
Joseph E. WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10471.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Wayne VINSON, petitioner, v. SOUTH CAROLINA.

No. 12-9054.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied.
Exhibit 31

                                                           [LOGO] IndymacBank(R)

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Blair Abernathy, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
      required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
      Form 10-K of IndyMac IMJA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-A2 (the "Exchange Act
      periodic reports");

2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
      whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
      state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
      the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
      with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
      information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered
      by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in
      this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in
      the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its
      obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance-with servicing criteria for
      asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
      assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
      securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item
      1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been
      included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in
      this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
      reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company and Newport Management Corporation.

Date: March 26, 2008



/s/ Blair Abernathy
-----------------------
Blair Abernathy
Executive Vice President
(Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor)
正确操作

“我没有清理、冲洗并

消毒餐池。”

“我清理、冲洗并消毒了餐

池。”

维护众人健康。 每次使用前,务必清理、冲洗及消毒设备。
Jeromi BAZUAYE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-425.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONSTANCE ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY

OF SAN MATEO et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-01967 CRB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The parties hereto, by their counsel, having advised the Court that they have agreed to a

settlement of this case,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case be dismissed without prejudice; provided,

however, that if any party hereto shall certify to this Court, within ninety days, with proof of service

of a copy thereon on opposing counsel, that the agreed consideration for said settlement has not been

delivered over, the foregoing Order shall stand vacated and this case shall forthwith be restored to

the calendar to be set for trial.

Dated: February 12, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document 48 Filed 02/13/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.1





CHIMERA
INVESTMENT CORPORATION


1211
AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS


SUITE
2902


NEW YORK,
NEW YORK 10036







CERTIFICATION




PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE




SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002, 10 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Chimera Investment Corporation
(the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009 to be filed with Securities
and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew
Lambiase, President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, 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 results of operations of the Company
      at the dates of, and for the periods covered by, the
    Report.




It is not
intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.




/s/ Matthew
Lambiase


Matthew Lambiase


Chief Executive Officer and
President


February 25, 2010
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6656** 

JASON ALEXANDER PULLEY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Anthony J
. Trenga , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv - 01465

- AJT

- TRJ )

Submitted : September 25, 2014 Decided: October 1, 2014

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jason Alexander Pulley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jason Alexander Pulley seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying reconsideration . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012)
. A certificate of appealability w ill not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would fi nd that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conc lude that Pulley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate ly3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 24625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11324]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM94-4-34-006 and RP95-259-000]


Florida Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

May 3, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 1, 1995, Florida Gas Transmission Company 
(FGT) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective 
June 1, 1995:

3rd Revised Eighth Revised Sheet No. 8A
2nd Revised Original Sheet No. 8A.02
Third Revised Sheet No. 200

    FGT states that the instant filing is being made to replace the 
Annual Unit Take-Or-Pay Surcharge mechanism by modifying Section 25 of 
the GTC and the applicable market area rate sheets to reflect that 
recovery of remaining Southern Fixed Charge obligations will be 
pursuant to arrangements which have been mutually agreed to between FGT 
and affected customers. Under these arrangements, all remaining 
balances will be resolved by the end of 1995. At that time, FGT will 
file to delete Section 25 from its GTC and reserve those sheets for 
future use.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426 in accordance with Sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should 
be filed on or before May 10, 1995. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11324 Filed 5-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Ekaterina V. SEVOSTIYANOVA, petitioner, v. GEORGIA.

No. 12-1133.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia denied.