alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

HUMBERTO NAJERA and )

A-1 AUTO SALES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 2:14-CV-207

)

S.A.M. INSURANCE SERVICES and )

AMERICAN SERVICE INSURANCE )

COMPANY, INC. )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge John E. Martin, filed on August

6, 2015 (DE #29). Judge Martin has recommended that this matter be

dismissed because Plaintiffs, Humberto Najera and A-1 Auto Sales,

have displayed continuous contumacious conduct as described more

fully in the body of the Report and Recommendation. In essence,

Plaintiffs have disregarded and failed to comply with this Court’s

orders despite repeated warnings of possible sanctions. The Report

and Recommendation itself explains that the failure to file a

timely objection to its contents will result in the waiver of the

right to challenge it before this Court or the Court of Appeals. 

No party has filed an objection to date, and the time period for

doing so has passed. 
Therefore, upon due consideration, the Court hereby ADOPTS the

Report and Recommendation (DE #29). Accordingly, this matter is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this

case. 

DATED: August 25, 2015 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

2
Exhibit 32.1    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the annual report of Cox Distributing, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen E. Cox, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify 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.   Date: March 27, 2008 /s/ Stephen E. Cox Stephen E. Cox Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer   F-1
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27556-27557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12680]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Computer Integrated Revision Total Hip 
Replacement Surgery Project

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 23, 1995, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Computer Integrated 
Revision Total Hip Replacement Surgery Project, has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) 
the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed 
for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery 
of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of 
the parties are: Integrated Surgical Systems, Inc., Sacramento, CA, and 
International Business Machines Corporation, Yorktown, NY.
    The nature and objective of this joint venture is to develop and 
clinically demonstrate a computer-integrated [[Page 27557]] system to 
assist surgeons in revision total hip replacement surgery.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-12680 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
#### Natividad SILVA, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. K.J. WENDT, Warden, FCI Seagoville, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-11084

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 21, 2004.

Natividad Silva, Jr., Seagoville, TX, pro se.

*187Angie Lee Henson, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Natividad Silva, Jr., federal prisoner # 23368-077, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Silva argues that the district court erred by holding that his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition was subject to dismissal because it did not warrant application of the “savings clause” set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because Silva’s claims fail to meet the requisite standard, the “savings clause” is not applicable to Silva’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. *See Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir .2001).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Silva’s motion seeking an emergency preliminary injunction is DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

*

 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.
la-1359097 

Writer’s Direct Contact 

+1 (415) 268.7020 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

425 MARKET STREET 

SAN FRANCISCO 

CALIFORNIA 94105-2482 

TELEPHONE: 415.268.7000 

FACSIMILE: 415.268.7522 

WWW.MOFO.COM 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

BEIJING , BERLIN , BRUSSELS , 

DENVER , HONG KONG , LONDON , 

LOS ANGELES , NEW YORK , 

NORTHERN VIRGINIA , PALO ALTO , 

SAN DIEGO , SAN FRANCISCO , SHANGHAI ,

SINGAPORE , TOKYO , WASHINGTON , D . C . 

August 28, 2017 

The Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley 

USDC, Northern District of California 

San Francisco Courthouse 

Courtroom F - 15th Floor 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Re: Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 WHA 

Dear Magistrate Judge Corley: 

Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Ottomotto LLC (“Uber”) submit this letter to clarify 

a statement in Plaintiff Waymo LLC’s (“Waymo”) letter brief regarding the protocol for 

Stroz Friedberg LLC’s production of materials provided by Anthony Levandowski in 

connection with the due diligence investigation (Dkt. No. 1329). 

Waymo’s letter brief states that “Stroz will make the materials available for inspection to 

Waymo.” (Dkt. No. 1328-3 at 1 (emphasis added).) Uber writes out of an abundance of 

caution to clarify that, regardless of which protocol the Court adopts, Uber will receive the 

same access to the Stroz materials as Waymo. All parties to an action are entitled to the 

discovery produced in response to a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. 

Arias v. Ruan Transp. Corp., No. 1:16-cv-00280-SAB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61299 at *10 

(E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2017); In re Hornbeam Corp., No. 14 Misc. 424 (Part 1), 2015 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 142361 at *30 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 17, 2015) (non-subpoenaing party is “entitled to 

inspect all materials produced in response to the previously issued subpoenas”). Thus, if the 

Court orders the inspection of the Stroz materials, as Waymo has requested, the Federal 

Rules mandate that Uber also be granted the same opportunity to inspect the materials. If the 

Court orders the application of search terms and production of documents, as 

Mr. Levandowski has proposed, Uber is entitled to a copy of the production. Uber otherwise 

takes no position on the competing protocols pending before the Court. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Arturo J. González 

Arturo J. González 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1382 Filed 08/28/17 Page 1 of 2
The Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley 

August 28, 2017 

Page Two 

la-1359097 

cc: Counsel of Record 

 Special Master John Cooper 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1382 Filed 08/28/17 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 34.4.2**

[Letterhead of Grant Thornton LLP] 

Accountants and Business Advisors 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

Board of Directors and Shareholders 

Land America Tax and Flood Services, Inc. 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”), that Land America Tax andFlood Services, Inc. (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the residential and commercial mortgage backed securities forwhich the Company served as third-party property tax payment provider on the underlying collateral (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii),1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i)-(x) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii)-(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company’scompliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, includedexamining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform and perfuming such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testingselected asset-backed transactions and securities constituting the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for theperiod covered by this report. Accordingly, our testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was not designed to detect materialnoncompliance that may have occurred prior to the period covered by this report that may have affected the company’s servicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis forour opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. 

In ouropinion, management’s assertion that Land America Tax and Flood Services, Inc. complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

San Diego, CA 

February 6, 2008 

12340 El Camino Real 

Suite 220 

San Diego, CA 92130 

T 858.704.8000 

F 858.704.8099 

W www.grantthornton.com

Grant Thornton LLP 

US Member of Grant Thornton International
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-CR-3

)

MARCEL BANKS )

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 May 20, 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 charges 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 Count 1 as charged in the five-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 20th day of May 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Del Taco Restaurant Properties I
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each
of the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|      |                 |  |                                                                    
|----- | --------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: | August 14, 2003 |  | /s/ Kevin K. Moriarty                                              
|      |                 |  |                                                                    
|      |                 |  | Kevin K. Moriarty
Director, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer   
|Date: | August 14, 2003 |  | /s/ Robert J. Terrano                                              
|      |                 |  |                                                                    
|      |                 |  | Robert J. Terrano
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer

-2-
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Humphreys, Felton and Senior Judge Annunziata∗

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

TIMOTHY R. RANNEY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION** BY 

v. Record No. 1051-04-4 JUDGE ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS 

 FEBRUARY 1, 2005 

CAROL M. RANNEY 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

Arthur B. Vieregg, Judge 

 Raymond D. Battocchi (Gabeler Battocchi Griggs & Powell, PLLC, 

on briefs), for appellant. 

 Paula W. Rank (Byrd Mische, P.C., on brief), for appellee. 

Appellant Timothy R. Ranney (“husband”) has appealed an equitable distribution award 

entered by the trial court pursuant to his no-fault divorce from appellee Carol M. Ranney 

(“wife”). In his appeal, husband raises the sole issue of whether the trial court abused its 

discretion by failing to “eliminate[] or drastically reduce[] the equitable award to the wife 

because she induced the marriage, and all of its financial benefits, by fraud.” 

For the reasons set forth in Ranney v. Ranney, Record No. 0979-04-4 (2004), this day 

decided, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Affirmed.

 ∗

 Judge Annunziata participated in the hearing and decision of this case prior to the 

effective date of her retirement on December 31, 2004 and thereafter by her designation as a 

senior judge pursuant to Code § 17.1-401. 

** Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Moreover, 

as this opinion has no precedential value, we recite only those facts necessary to our holding.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26711-26712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12220]



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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95-63, RM-8617]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Rushville, IL

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by Larry 
K. and Cathy M. Price, requesting the substitution of Channel 223A for 
Channel 244A at Rushville, Illinois. Channel 223A can be substituted 
for Channel 244A at Rushville, Illinois, in compliance with the 
Commission's minimum distance separation requirements at petitioners 
licensed site with a site restriction of 8.3 kilometers (5.1 miles) 
northwest of the community. The proposed coordinates for Channel 223A 
at Rushville are North Latitude 40-08-20 and West Longitude 90-39-26.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 6, 1995, and reply 
comments on or before July 21, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. 
In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Larry 
K. and Cathy M. Price, P.O. Box 196, 123 North Liberty Street, 
Rushville, Illinois 62681 (Petitioners).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy J. Walls, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 95-63, adopted May 8, 
1995, and released May 15, 1995. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW, 
Washington, D.C. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1919 M Street, NW, Room 
246, or 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

[[Page 26712]] Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-12220 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Paul KING, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9449.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
AO 450 (Rev. 01/09) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Northern District of Indiana 

CAMERON PATTERSON,

Petitioner 

 v. Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-373

 arising out of 1:13-CR-65

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

 the plaintiff _______________________________________________________________________ 

recover from the defendant the amount of 

dollars $ , which includes prejudgment interest at the rate of % plus post-judgment 

interest at the rate of % along with costs.

 the plaintiff recover nothing, the action is dismissed on the merits, and the defendant 

recover costs from the plaintiff .

X Other: The Court DENIES the Petitioner’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set

 Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody and supplemental Motion to

Vacate. The Court also DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability.

This action was (check one):

 tried to a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has 

rendered a verdict.

 tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision was 

reached.

 X decided by Chief Judge Theresa L. Springmann on a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 

Sentence.

DATE: May 10, 2018 ROBERT N. TRGOVICH, CLERK OF COURT

By: s/ L. Higgins-Conrad 

 Signature of Deputy Clerk
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 27597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12804]

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

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Thursday, June 1, 1995.

PLACE: The Board Room, 5th Floor, 490 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20594.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    6431B  Special Investigation Report: Safety of the Air Tour 
Industry in the United States.
    6554  Briefs of Aviation Accidents.

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202) 382-0660.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Bea Hardesty, (202) 382-6525.

    Dated: May 19, 1995.
Bea Hardesty,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-12804 Filed 5-22-95; 9:12 am]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-M
```
Adam M. MILLER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6627.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT B

FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 24-5 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 1
Christopher ROWAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10473.

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.