alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1























































No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

 Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)

 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com

 David A. Perlson (Bar No. 209502)

 davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com

 Melissa J. Baily (Bar No. 237649)

 melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com

 John Neukom (Bar No. 275887)

 johnneukom@quinnemanuel.com

 Jordan R. 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,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC,

Defendants.

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

PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED 

DOCUMENT: DOCKET NO. 248-3

Trial Date: October 2, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 274 Filed 04/25/17 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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT

Plaintiff Waymo LLC (“Waymo”) files this Administrative Motion to Remove a 

Document from ECF, submitted electronically on April 21, 2017, by Waymo. Specifically, 

Docket 248-3 contains information that Waymo and Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., 

Ottomotto LLC, and Otto Trucking LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) agree is governed by Docket 

No. 60, and that was inadvertently filed in improper form. Waymo has already contacted the ECF 

Help Desk regarding this issue, and the ECF Help Desk has temporarily blocked public access to 

this filing. Plaintiff has also filed a corrected version of this document. 

For the foregoing reasons, Waymo respectfully requests that the Court grant Waymo’s 

Administrative Motion to Remove. 

DATED: April 25, 2017 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, 

LLP

By /s/Charles K. Verhoeven

Charles K. Verhoeven

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 274 Filed 04/25/17 Page 2 of 2
Keith B. HAWKINS, petitioner, v. VIRGINIA.

No. 12-8782.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:13-CR-017 JD

)

MICHAEL A. VOLPE )

ORDER

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

a plea of guilty issued on May 16, 2013 [DE 23]. Accordingly, the court now ADOPTS those

findings and recommendations, with the exception that the schedule for sentencing laid out therein

has been superseded by the schedule laid out by this court in the order entered May 20, 2013. [DE

25]. The Court ACCEPTS defendant Michael Volpe’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant

guilty of Counts 2 and 32 of the Indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1957.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: June 4, 2013 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ricky Tejada, :

Appellant :

 :

v. : No. 484 C.D. 2021

 : 

Sue Dowd, Rene Styka and :

Jonathan Simpson :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, September 23, 2022, upon consideration of Ricky Tejada’s 

(Appellant) Motion for Reconsideration (Motion), which requests that this Court 

stay its August 4, 2022 Order vacating the October 20, 2020 order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Schuylkill County (trial court) and remanding the matter to the 

trial court for further proceedings because Appellant is temporarily incarcerated at 

the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyna, Delaware and does not have 

access to his legal materials related to this litigation, to which no response was filed, 

the Motion is GRANTED. The Court’s August 4, 2022 Order is stayed until further 

order of the Court. Appellant is directed to file a status report within 10 days of his 

return to Pennsylvania or on or before December 22, 2022, whichever is sooner.
Sherry L. BURT, Warden, petitioner, v. Vonlee Nicole TITLOW.

No. 12-414.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Motion of respondent for appointment of counsel granted. Valerie Newman, of Detroit, Michigan, is appointed to serve as counsel for the respondent in this case.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1221 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or plastic footwear. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or plastic 

footwear. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN FOOTWEAR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.64.02 Rubber or plastic footwear 

provided for in subheading 

6402.30.30 ........................... Free Free No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 
2 

•HR 1221 IH 

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
Michael L. HOLMES, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 12-8476.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
Harold Earl SCALLON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-7518.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

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

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 25, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00252

- CV

Jean Eckford HARDAWAY , Et al.

,

Appellant s

v.

Lou Eda Korth Stubb s NIXON , Et al.,

Appellee s

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12

- 09

- 0188

- CVK Honorable Russell H. Wilson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On August 4 , 2016, th is court ordered appellants to request the reporter ’ s record(s) and provide written proof to this court that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant s are entitled to appeal wit hout paying the reporter’s fee. On August 15, 2016, appellants’ attorney, Ms. Stella Grace Marks, filed copies of letter s she sent to Mr. Richey Gentry and Ms. Leticia Escamilla

, the two reporters responsible for preparing, certifying, and filing the reporter’s records in this appeal.

On August 19, 2016, this court ordered Mr. Gentry t o file his portion of the designated reporter’s record in this appeal no later than September 16, 2016.

On August 19, 2016, Ms. Marks filed a copy of a second letter she sent to Ms. Escamilla stating the agreement to pay a deposit and then the balance owed once Ms. Escamilla determined her fee for preparing the record. Ms. Escamilla is hereby ORDERED to file her portion of the designated reporter’s record in t his appeal no later than September 23, 2016

.

In her letter to Ms. Escamilla, Ms. Marks indicate d additional reporter’s records may be required from a Mr. Turner. Ms. Marks is hereby ORDERED to provide a written update to

this court no later than September 2 , 2016 regarding (1) whether Mr. Turner did in fact prepare additional records in this case, and (2) what arrangements Ms. Marks has made to obtain and pay for those records._________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justic e

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 25th day of August, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Cler k of Court
HISTORIC BOARDWALK HALL, LLC, et al., petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 12-901.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

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

)

JAMISON A. GUDORF )

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 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 Count 1 of the two-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 October, 2013.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
In re Jon M. COX, petitioner.

No. 12-8724.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3691-3692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1108]



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


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application To Withdraw From Listing 
and Registration; (Century Communications Corp., Class A Common Stock, 
$.01 Par Value) File No. 1-9676

January 10, 1995.
    Century Communications Corp. (``Company'') has filed an application 
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant 
to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') and 
Rule 12d2-2(d) promulgated thereunder, to withdraw the above specific 
security (``Security'') from listing and registration on the American 
Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Amex'').
    The reasons alleged in the application for withdrawing the security 
from listing and registration include the following:
    According to the Company, in addition to being listed on the Amex, 
the Security is listed on the NASDAQ National Market System (``NASDAQ/
NMS''). The Security commenced trading on the NASDAQ/NMS at the opening 
of business on January 5, 1995 and concurrently therewith the Security 
was suspended from trading on the Amex.
    The Company's decision to withdraw the Security from Listing on the 
Amex was based upon the Company's belief:
    (1) that the NASDAQ/NMS system of competing market makers will 
result in increased visibility and sponsorship for its common stock 
than is presently the case with the single specialist on the Amex;
    (2) that the NASDAQ/NMS system will offer the Company's 
shareholders more liquidity than is presently available on the Amex and 
less volatility in quoted prices per share when trading volume is 
slight;
    (3) that the NASDAQ/NMS system will offer the opportunity for the 
Company to secure its own group of market makers and expand the capital 
base available for trading in the common stock; and
    (4) that the firms making a market in the Company's common stock on 
the NASDAQ/NMS system will also be inclined to issue research reports 
concerning the Company, thereby increasing the number of firms 
[[Page 3692]] providing institutional research and advisory reports.
    Any interested person may, on or before January 31, 1995 submit by 
letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 
Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549, facts bearing upon whether the 
application has been made in accordance with the rules of the Amex and 
what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the 
protection of investors. The Commission, based on the information 
submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the 
date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a 
hearing on the matter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-1108 Filed 1-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Jerry Tronne BROWN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9389.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Lace HEFLIN, DOC #H02907, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3946

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 12, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Gary C. BERNACKI, Sr., petitioner, v. CONNECTICUT.

No. 12-759.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Connecticut denied.
#### Luis Arturo CARRANZA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-71144.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2004.*

Decided April 27, 2004.

Edgardo Quintanilla, Esq., Attorney at Law, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.

*507Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., Andrew C. MacLachlan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Luis Arturo Carranza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion, *Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition.

We do not consider Carranza’s arguments concerning the BIA’s September 17, 2002 decision because Carranza did not file a timely petition for review of that decision. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996).

To the extent Carranza challenges the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration, the challenge fails because the BIA’s stated reasons were not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” *See Carancho v. INS,*68 F.3d 356, 360 (9th Cir.1995).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Charles BROWN, petitioner, v. Ira GREENE, et al.

No. 12-8815.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Frances WILCOX, Appellant, v. PUBLIX and Publix Risk Management, Appellees.

No. 1D19-0076

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**R E P O R T   O N   A S S E S S M E N T   O F   C O M P L I A N C E   W I T H****1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi) and 1122(d)(4)(xii)****o f   R E G U L A T I O N   A B   S E R V I C I N G   C R I T E R I A****F O R   T H E   R E P O R T I N G   P E R I O D****JANUARY 1, 2007 TO DECEMBER 31, 2007**American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (formerly, "Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.") (collectively, the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing compliance for the period of January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing criteria set forth in 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi) and 1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria") which the Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow serv i c i n g  activities it performs with respect to all mortgage backed securities transactions that were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Platform Transactions"). The Asser ting Party used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has identified a material instance of noncompliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. Specifically, the Asserting Party did not have, during the Reporting Period, sufficient policies and procedures to capture the information with respect t o the Platform Transactions necessary to determine compliance with 1122(d)(4)(xii), The Asserting Party has concluded that, with the exception of the aforementioned material instance of noncompliance, the Asserting Party has complied, in all material resp ects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance  with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period. **American Security Insurance Company Standard Guaranty Insurance Company TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc.**(formerly, "Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.") /s/ John Frobose By: John Frobose Senior Vice President Date: February 19, 2008
CARPET SERVICES INTERNATIONAL INC., et al., petitioners, v. CHICAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, et al.

No. 12-1049.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Subject: FaceTime bug 

From: "Kurt Knight" <kknight@apple.com> 

Received(Date): Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:53:02 +0000 

To: "Trudy Muller" <tmuller@apple.com>,"Deidre Caldbeck" 

<dcaldbeck@apple.com>, "Greg Joswiak" <joz@apple.com> 

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:53:02 +0000 

Update on the FaceTime bug I mentioned earlier this morning.

There is a bug with how FaceTime deals with certificates that causes FaceTime to not 

work for devices that were activated three years ago or longer.

We are working on getting a fix into Taos today for iPhone 4 and iPad 2. FaceTime isn’t 

supported prior to these devices so older devices are not supported. Have some time 

before newer devices are impacted so we are reducing risk and putting a fix for them 

into Sochi.

Had originally thought this might impact Game Center bug have now confirmed that this 

does not. Surveying system to confirm that FaceTime is the only impact of this bug.

Also investigating a tool that can be used by AppleCare and Retail Geniuses to fix this 

issue without updating to iOS 7.

Only workaround right now is to move to a new device or erase all contents and settings 

and not restore from backup, which fixes the issue for another three years. If you restore 

your backup to a new device and then restore back to your original device that also 

similarly fixes the issue.

Kurt

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY APL-GRACE_00002786

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-73 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 1
Case No. 3:17-cv-00359-WHA RESPONSE TO ORDER 

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

Basil P. Fthenakis, Esq. (88399) 

CRITERION LAW 

2225 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 200 

Palo Alto, California 94303 

Tel. (650) 352-8400 

Fax. (650) 352-8408 

bpf@criterionlaw.com 

Of counsel: 

David S. Godkin (Admitted pro hac vice)

James E. Kruzer (Admitted pro hac vice) 

BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP 

280 Summer Street 

Boston, MA 02210 

Tel: (617) 307-6100 

Fax: (617) 307-6101 

godkin@birnbaumgodkin.com 

kruzer@birnbaumgodkin.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

SIX4THREE, LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SIX4THREE, LLC, a Delaware limited 

liability company, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

) 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00359-WHA

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ORDER 

GRANTING REQUEST TO FILE A 

SURREPLY AND REQUESTING 

RESPONSE FROM PLAINTIFF 

 

Date: February 16, 2017 

Time: 8:00AM 

Ctrm: 8 

Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 29 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 3:17-cv-00359-WHA RESPONSE TO ORDER 

 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

Plaintiff Six4Three, LLC hereby responds to Judge Alsup’s Order Granting Request to 

File a Surreply and Requesting Response from Plaintiff (#28) as follows: No. 

Dated: February 14, 2017 CRITERION LAW 

 BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP 

 By: /s/ David S. Godkin 

 Basil P. Fthenakis 

David S. Godkin (admitted pro hac vice) 

James E. Kruzer (admitted pro hac vice) 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 Six4Three, LLC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of 

California, that I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using 

the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: 

Sonal N. Mehta 

Laura E. Miller 

Catherine Y. Kim 

Durie Tangri LLP 

217 Leidesdorff Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

SMehta@durietangri.com 

LMiller@durietangri.com 

CKim@durietangri.com 

DATED: February 14, 2017 

By: /s/ David S. Godkin 

 David S. Godkin

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 29 Filed 02/14/17 Page 2 of 2