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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN L. WATSON,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

WARREN RUPF, Head Sheriff;

DEPUTY DUDLEY, bus driver;

SERGEANT MULLNIX, Richmond

court’s sergeant,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-1923 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a prisoner at a county jail. The court’s order

dismissing the complaint with leave to amend was returned as undeliverable with a notation

that plaintiff was no longer in custody, and the sheriff’s office also wrote to inform the court

that plaintiff was no longer in custody. Plaintiff has not provided a current mailing address.

More than sixty days have passed since the mail was returned. This case is

DISMISSED without prejudice. See Local R. 3-11(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2006. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.05\WATSON923.DSM

Case 4:05-cv-01923-PJH Document 9 Filed 08/09/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Leroy A. MOSES, a/k/a Jawad Amir Musa, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Michael V. PUGH, Warden, of U.S.P. Allenwood, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-6305.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2004.

Decided May 19, 2004.

Leroy A. Moses, Appellant pro se.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM.

Leroy A. Moses seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moses has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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*
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7325

ROGER EARL COLEY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; JUDGE W. RUSSELL DUKE, JR. , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:17

- ct

- 03109

- D )

Submitted : Dec ember 2 0 , 2018 Decided: December 27, 2018

Before D IAZ and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Roger Earl Coley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Roger Earl Coley a ppeals th e district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action as frivolous. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). As Coley’s in formal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
court’s denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) relief , he has forfeit ed appellate review of that decision

. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014)

. Although Coley asserts that the district court should have appointed him counsel during the proceedings below, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s failure to appoint counsel sua sponte. See Miller v. Simmons , 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987 ) (standard of review); Whisenant v. Yuam , 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984) (requiring exceptional circumstances to support appointment of counsel in civil cases), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa , 490 U.S . 296 (1989).
Because we have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous , we dismiss the appeal . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argume nt would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
CERTIFICATION





I, Craig Stout, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of IMedicor, Inc.;





2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:





a.  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;





b.  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period (the “Evaluation Date”); and





c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;





5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.





6.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





/s/ Craig Stout


Craig Stout


Chief Operating Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer


Date: October 13, 2010
EXHIBIT 2

5('$&7('9(56,212)

'2&80(17628*+772

%(6($/('

EXHIBIT 2

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1333-3 Filed 08/24/17 Page 1 of 4
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

4

5 WAYMO LLC,

6 Plaintiff,

7 vs. Case No.

8 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

9 OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING,

10 INC.,

11 Defendants.

12 _____________________________/

13

14 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

15

16 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF CHELSEA BAILEY

17 PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA

18 TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2017

19

20

21 BY: ANDREA M. IGNACIO, CSR, RPR, CRR, CCRR, CLR ~

22 CSR LICENSE NO. 9830

23 JOB NO. 2668970

24

25 PAGES 1 - 323

Page 1

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1333-3 Filed 08/24/17 Page 2 of 4
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

4

5 WAYMO LLC,

6 Plaintiff,

7 vs. Case No.

8 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

9 OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING,

10 INC.,

11 Defendants.

12 _____________________________/

13

14

15 Videotaped Deposition of Chelsea Bailey,

16 taken on behalf of the Defendants, on August 1,

17 2017, at Morrison & Foerster, 950 Page Mill Road,

18 Palo Alto, California, beginning 9:01 a.m., and

19 commencing at 6:52 p.m., Pursuant to Notice, and

20 before me, ANDREA M. IGNACIO, CSR, RPR, CRR, CLR ~

21 License No. 9830.

22

23

24

25

Page 2

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1333-3 Filed 08/24/17 Page 3 of 4
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 including 

; correct? 15:09

3 A That's what he shared, yes. 15:09

4 Q Did Mr. Levandowski say anything else about 15:09

5

 15:09

7 A No. 15:09

8 Q Did you ask him? 15:09

9 A No. 15:09

10 Q Did you understand it to be ? 15:09

11 A I didn't. I didn't even consider it. I 15:09

12 think my main takeaways was that he -- he wasn't 15:09

13 decided, and he was just sort of thinking out loud 15:09

14 about the potential things he might do. 15:09

15 Q And the next bullet down is: 15:10

16 "Possibly starting his own thing, 15:10

17 self-driving semi trucks." 15:10

18 A That's what he shared, yeah. 15:10

19 Q Did he say anything else on that point? 15:10

20 A No. 15:10

21 Q Did you ask him? 15:10

22 A No. 15:10

23 Q The next header down is labeled: 15:10

24 "Who He's Taking." 15:10

25 And the first bullet there is: 15:10

Page 210

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1333-3 Filed 08/24/17 Page 4 of 4
case 3:13-cv-00052-PPS-CAN document 42 filed 08/20/13 page 1 of 2
case 3:13-cv-00052-PPS-CAN document 42 filed 08/20/13 page 2 of 2
Gilberto SANTIAGO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9756.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 297-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 297-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 297-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 297-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 297-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 5 of 5
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11732]



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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Illinois Advisory Committee will convene at 9:30 a.m. and adjourn 
at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 31, 1995, at the Ralph Metcalf Federal 
Building, 77 West Jackson Street, Room 328, Chicago, Illinois. The 
purpose of the meeting is to discuss current issues, plan future 
activities, and hold a press conference to release the Advisory 
Committee's report, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans in 
Metropolitan Chicago.

    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Committee Chairperson Faye M. Lyon, 
815-965-9595, or Constance M. Davis, Director of the Midwestern 
Regional Office, 312-353-8311 (TDD 312-353-8326). Hearing-impaired 
persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign 
language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least five 
(5) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, May 8, 1995.

Carol-Lee Hurley,

Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

[FR Doc. 95-11732 Filed 5-11-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
Fabio Evelio GOMEZ, petitioner, v. ARIZONA.

No. 12-8611.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona 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 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF LEO P.

CUNNINGHAM

CASE NO.: 3:17-CV-00939

-1-

LEO P. CUNNINGHAM, State Bar No. 121605 

Email: lcunningham@wsgr.com

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

WAYMO LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; OTTOMOTTO 

LLC; OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF 

LEO P. CUNNINGHAM 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 450 Filed 05/16/17 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 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF LEO P.

CUNNINGHAM

CASE NO.: 3:17-CV-00939

-2-

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

TO THE CLERK OF COURT AND ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Leo P. Cunningham of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & 

Rosati, P.C., 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, telephone number (650) 493-9300, 

facsimile number (650) 565-5100, and admitted to practice before this Court, hereby enters his 

appearance as attorney of record for plaintiff WAYMO LLC in the above-captioned matter. 

Dated: May 16, 2017 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

By: /s/ Leo P. Cunningham 

 Leo P. Cunningham 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

WAYMO LLC 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 450 Filed 05/16/17 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HASSAN BIN ATTASH, Petitioner , v. BARACK OBAMA, et al., Respondents
. Civil Action No. 05-1592 (RCL)

ORDER The parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED. Respondents shall file their oppositions to (a) Petitioner’s Motion for Disclosure of Evidence Relating to Torture, Abuse, and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment; (b) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Exculpatory Evidence and Automatic Discovery; and (c) Petitioner’s Motion for Permissive Discovery, all filed under seal with the Court Security Officer on March 3, 2009 ( seeNotice of Filings, Dkt. No. 176), by Friday, April 3, 2009. Petitioner shall file his reply to such oppositions by Friday, April 17, 2009.
Date Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth United States District Judge 3 / 30 / 2009 / s /
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                            8366
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      165
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  8551
<PP&E>                                           10904
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   19455
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2311
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       17144
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     19455
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   512
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   544
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  2354
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2670)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2670)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   1769
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (901)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.32)
        

</TABLE>
Hezekiah HAMILTON, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 12-8896.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) Cause No. 3:12-CR-128(2) RLM

)

TIMOTHY WHITFIELD )

OPINION AND ORDER

Timothy Whitfield pleaded guilty to violations of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) and

1962(c) in May 2013 and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 320 months. His

sentence was reduced to 236 months in February 2015, and an amended

judgment was entered at that time. Mr. Whitfield requested and received copies

of the August 23, 2013 sentencing memorandum and docket sheet in 2014, before

his sentence was modified, and filed a second request for copies of the

memorandum, docket sheet, and “other important documents”, after the amended

judgment was entered. 

Mr. Whitfield waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence and to

file a post-conviction proceeding in his plea agreement and hasn’t identified which

documents he deems “important,” but the court GRANTS his request in all other

respects and DIRECTS the Clerk to send Mr. Whitfield copies of the court’s August

23, 2013 sentencing memorandum [Doc. No. 243], the amended judgment entered

on February 12, 2015 [Doc. No. 314] and an updated docket sheet. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: November 19, 2015 
 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court

2
別讓我的事件重演

我是 David,有一天上班時,突然 我有經濟上的壓力,之後待身體稍 我當時不明白我雙手已沾滿的病 還有小黃瓜上 ... ... 感到身體不適,並奔向洗手間。 微恢復後,便繼續輪班。這時有一 菌,病菌因此散播在蕃茄... 份沙拉的餐點訂單,我忘了洗手或

穿戴手套。

...以及整盤沙拉... ...一名叫 Ashlynn 的小女孩吃了我製作的沙拉後。 隔天便感到腹部絞痛並嘔吐等

不適症狀,還有若干人也因食

用了我當天準備的食物而感到

身體不適。

我應該避免這類情況發生。

為維護大眾健康,請勤洗手,穿戴手

套或使用餐具,生病時請勿上班。
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

EUREKA DIVISION

JEANETTE BROWN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SONOMA COUNTY LAND COMPANY, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case Nos. 17-cv-00913, 18-cv-02699-RMI 

ORDER DISMISSING STATE-LAW 

CLAIMS; AND, SETTING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFF’S 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES REQUEST

For the reasons stated in this court’s Order of April 15, 2022 (see dkt. 108 in Case No. 17-

cv-00913RMI; see also dkt. 100 in Case No. 18-cv-02699) there court hereby declines to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims. Accordingly, those claims are 

DISMISSED. If Plaintiffs so desire, they are free to file those claims in state court. In light of the 

dismissal of Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, and given the fact that all equitable issues related to the 

remaining federal claims have been resolved by written agreement, and given also that all 

conditions of the agreement have been performed and completed (see Second Supp. Status Rep. 

(dkt. 106) at 4) (Filed in Case No. 18-cv-02699-RMI), the court finds that there are no outstanding 

issues to be adjudicated other than the matter of Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees. 

In that regard, the court declines to re-refer the matter to another settlement judge for 

further settlement proceedings regarding the subject of attorney’s fees. If the Parties so wish, they 

can either request a further settlement conference with Judge Cousins or they can venture to 

resolve the matter independently. Failing a stipulated resolution, Plaintiffs’ opening brief on the

entitlement to attorney’s fees, their amount, and the justifications therefor shall be due to be filed 

no later than Monday, August 22, 2022. Defendants’ responsive brief shall be due to be filed no 
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

later than Tuesday, September 6, 2022. Plaintiffs’ reply, if they elect to file one, shall be due to be 

filed no later than Tuesday, September 13, 2022. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to ensure that their 

opening brief is filed in compliance with this district’s Local Rules regarding motions for 

attorneys’ fees (such that the motion includes sufficient documentation to allow a reasonableness 

determination as to the hourly rate and the number of hours expended). See Civ. L.R. 54-5. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2022

ROBERT M. ILLMAN

United States Magistrate Judge
Charles Francis GRAHAM, petitioner, v. Alvin William KELLER, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction, et al.

No. 12-9974.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

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