alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T L UI S L OR E NZ O A R ME NT E R O, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. JA M E S E . T IL T O N , C D C RS ecret ary; M A T T H E W K R A M E R , W ar de n, F ol s om S t a t e P r i s on, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 16307 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 2 6 8 - J K SC MK ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J am e s K . S i ngl e t on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2011 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dM cK E O W N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L ui s L or e nz o A rm e nt e r o, aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nti n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng tha tpr i s on l o c k d o w n s v i o l a t e dh i s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t s . W e h av e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. 

# FI LED JAN 11 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 16307 2 § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A . R es ni ck

v. H ayes , 2 1 3 F. 3 d4 4 3 , 4 4 7 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) . W e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dA rm e n te r o ’s c la im b a s e do n d e lib e r a te i nd i ff er ence t o h i s m edi ca l needs because A rm ent er o fai l ed t o al l ege that d e f e n d an ts w e r e aw ar e o f

an e x c e s s iv e r is kto h is h e a lth b a s e do n h is p la c e m e n t in s e g r e g a tio n du r in g p r is o n lo c k d o w n s . Se e T oguc hiv . Chung , 391 F . 3d 1051, 1057 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). T o the e xt e nttha tA rm e nt e r o c ha l l e nge d the c ondi t i ons of hi s c onf i ne m e nt b asedo n a l acko f ex erci se, th e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y d i sm i ssedh i s cl ai m b ecau se A rm ent er o fai l ed t o al l ege asubst ant i aldepri vat i on i n h i s s ec on d am ended c o m p la in t. Se e M

a yv . B a ldw in , 10 9 F . 3d 55 7, 56 5 (9th C i r. 19 97 ) ( expl ai ni ng that

“ a t em po rarydeni alof ou t do or exerc i se w i th n o m edi ca l ef fe ct s i s nota s ub st ant i al d e p r iv a tio n ” u n d e rth e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t) ; Ferdik v . B on ze let , 963 F . 2d 1258, 12 62 (9th C i r. 19 92 ) ( re fe re nce t o o ri gi nal and fi rs tam ended com pl ai nt s w as prec l ud ed by do ctri ne thatan am ended p l ea di ng supers edes the ori gi nal pl ea di ng ). A rm ent er o’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN OTTO REITZ,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

CHARLES HARRISON, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-56858

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01119-ABC-JTL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Audrey B. Collins, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 10, 2010** 

Pasadena, California

Before: TROTT, WARDLAW, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

The state appellate court’s denial of Reitz’s claim that the trial court violated

his due process rights by limiting the testimony of his expert witnesses was not

contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. 

FILED

DEC 20 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Defendants do not have an absolute right to present evidence relevant to their

defense, see Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690–91 (1986), and the state court

neither invoked a “per se” evidentiary rule, see Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44,

56–57, 62 (1987), nor so drastically limited Reitz’s ability to examine his expert

witnesses as to raise due process concerns, see Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S.

284, 302 (1973).

The state court’s denial of Reitz’s Confrontation Clause claim was not

contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Here,

none of the casual remarks by Eva to friends and family were “testimonial” within

the meaning of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51–52 (2004), or Davis v.

Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822 (2006), because the remarks were not made “under

circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that

[they] would be available for use at a later trial,” Parle v. Runnels, 387 F.3d 1030,

1037 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 52) (internal quotation marks

omitted). 

The state court’s denial of Reitz’s claim that the admission of six hearsay

statements by the victim violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth

Amendment was not contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Supreme Court

precedent. The hearsay statements were cumulative of other testimony and did not
3

“render[ ] the trial so fundamentally unfair as to violate due process.” Randolph v.

California, 380 F.3d 1133, 1147 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Windham v. Merkle, 163

F.3d 1092, 1103 (9th Cir. 1998)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even if the

admission of such statements was a state law error, such an error cannot, on its

own, support the granting of habeas relief. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62,

67–68 (1991). 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1


Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Certification Pursuant to Section 906


of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)


In connection with the Annual Report of Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2015 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K of the Company, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William J. McMorrow, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:


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


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


In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this certificate as of the date set forth opposite his signature below.





Date:March 25, 2016/s/ WILLIAM J. MCMORROWWilliam J. McMorrowChief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18. U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

DANIEL CASEY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 130 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of August, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
case 3:13-cv-00052-PPS-CAN document 18 filed 04/10/13 page 1 of 4
case 3:13-cv-00052-PPS-CAN document 18 filed 04/10/13 page 2 of 4
case 3:13-cv-00052-PPS-CAN document 18 filed 04/10/13 page 3 of 4
case 3:13-cv-00052-PPS-CAN document 18 filed 04/10/13 page 4 of 4
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27556]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12726]

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-370]

In the Matter of: Certain Salinomycin Biomass and Preparations 
Containing Same

    Notice is hereby given that the prehearing conference in this 
matter will commence at 10:00 a.m. on June 5, 1995, in Courtroom B 
(Room 111), U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E St. 
S.W., Washington, D.C., and the hearing will commence immediately 
thereafter.
    The Secretary shall publish this notice in the Federal Register.

    Issued: May 16, 1995.
Sidney Harris,
Administrative Law Judge.
[FR Doc. 95-12726 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
```
**Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPursuantto 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as created by section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, CraigA. McCollam, Chief Financial Officer of Dionex Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that,to the best of his knowledge:1. The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, and towhich this Certification is attached (the “Annual Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     By: /s/ Craig A. McCollam       Name: Craig A. McCollam  Title: Chief Financial Officer  Dated: November 9, 2005
United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana 

TONY L. LOVE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-833 JVB

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Tony L. Love, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §

2254 challenging a prison disciplinary conviction. (DE 4.) On August 10, 2012, Love was found

guilty in WCC 12-08-007 of committing a violation of state law, specifically, stalking. (Id.)

Among other sanctions, he lost earned time credits and was demoted to a lower credit-earning

class. (Id.) After Love filed this petition, the Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”)

decided to vacate the disciplinary conviction and remand the case for a new hearing. (DE 13-1.) 

Based on the IDOC’s action, the respondent moves to dismiss the petition as moot. As

the respondent points out, because the conviction has been vacated, there is at present nothing

for this court to review. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003) (prison

disciplinary conviction can be challenged in a federal habeas proceeding only if it lengthened the

duration of the petitioner’s confinement); see also Brown v. Bartholomew Consol. Sch. Corp.,

442 F.3d 588, 596 (7th Cir. 2006) (“For a case to be justiciable, a live controversy must continue

to exist at all stages of review, not simply on the date the action was initiated.”). 

Love filed an opposition to the motion, arguing that the petition should not be dismissed

because he served time in disciplinary segregation and lost phone privileges as a result of the

guilty finding. (DE 19.) However, this is not a basis for keeping the petition alive. Disciplinary
segregation and loss of privileges affect the “severity” rather than the “duration” of custody.

Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2001). As the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Seventh Circuit has explained, “More restrictive custody must be challenged under § 1983, in

the uncommon circumstance when it can be challenged at all.” Id.; see also Sandin v. Conner,

515 U.S. 472, 484-85 (1995) (prisoners are not entitled to due process protections unless a

change in prison conditions results in an “atypical and significant hardship” when compared to

“the ordinary incidents of prison life”). 

Love also appears to argue that the prison has no authority to conduct another hearing on

the same charge. (DE 19.) To the extent he is trying to raise a double jeopardy challenge, his

argument is unavailing, since double jeopardy principles do not apply in the prison disciplinary

context. See Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 722 (7th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the petition will

be dismissed. However, if Love is dissatisfied with the results of the new hearing, he is free to

file a new habeas petition after exhausting his administrative remedies.

For the reasons set forth above, the petition (DE 4) is DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED on August 29, 2013.

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

Joseph S. Van Bokkelen

United States District Judge

Hammond Division

2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER MODIFYING § 4 OF THE

PENNSYLVANIA CONTINUING LEGAL

EDUCATION BOARD REGULATIONS :

:

:

:

:

:

: NO. 832

SUPREME COURT RULES

DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of March, 2020, upon the recommendation of the Continuing Legal Education (“CLE”) Board

,

IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, and Rule 1952(A) of the Rules of Judicial Administration, that § 4 of the Pennsylvania Continuing Legal Education Board Regulations , implem enting Rule 105(a)(1) of the Pennsylvania Rules for Continuing Legal Education, is modified as

follows:

The April 30, 2020 CLE compliance deadline applicable to Compliance Group 1 is hereby extended to August 31, 2020. All other 2020 annual compliance deadlines remain unchanged and on standard schedule.

This ORDER shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective immediately.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12674]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Network Management Forum

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 14, 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''), the Network Management Forum 
(``the Forum'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions 
to its membership. The additional notifications were filed for the 
purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damage under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, the identities of the new members to the venture are as 
follows: US West Technologies, Inc., Boulder, CO; and Accugraph 
Corporation, El Paso, TX are Corporate Members. Database Server Systems 
Limited, Wokingham, Berkshire, UNITED KINGDOM; Korea Telecom, Seoul, 
KOREA; Legent Corporation, Bellevue, WA; Object Design, Inc., 
Burlington, MA; and Remedy Corporation, Mountain View, CA are Associate 
Members. Consultancy & Projects Group, Rome, ITALY; Instituto 
Costarricense De Electricidad, Miami, FL; ITT-Team Telecom Inc., Givat 
Shmuel, ISRAEL; and University of Maryland at College Park, College 
Park, MD are Affiliate Members.
    No other changes have been made, since the last notification filed 
with the Department, in either the membership or planned activity of 
the group research project. Membership in this group research project 
remains open, and the Forum intends to file additional written 
notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On October 21, 1988, the Forum filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on December 8, 1988 (53 FR 49615).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 19, 
1994. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on February 16, 1995 (60 FR 9052).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-12674 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TOM DOUGLAS HOOVER

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3387

[ January 24, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,

Okeechobee County ; Dan L. Vaughn , Judge; L.T. Case No.

472016CF000194A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Peggy Natale, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody , Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III,

Assistant Attorney Gener al, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN

, L EVINE and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 12, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, November 12, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21D0100. QUEST DIAGNOSTIC CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC. v. DAVID CURRY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2020CV333585
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>



<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>            JUN-30-2000

<CASH>                           2,275,813
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                       27,441
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 2,303,254
<PP&E>                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   2,408,442
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               89,831
<BONDS>                               0
<COMMON>                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                        (523,700)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     2,408,442
<SALES>                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    67,675
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   317,952
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (250,277)
<INCOME-TAX>                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (205,543)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                      (205,543)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.54)



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:12-CR-80-TLS 

)

ROBERT J. HENDRY )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 30], filed on August 15, 2013. The Defendant has waived objection to

the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 30] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 4 of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and

the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

Any request for a sentence involving a departure under the United States Sentencing

Guidelines, or for a variance above or below a Guidelines sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),

with the exception of matters raised pursuant to §5K1.1 of the Guidelines, shall be communicated to

the probation officer and opposing counsel, in writing, within fourteen (14) days following initial

disclosure of the pre-sentence report. Any sentencing memorandum addressing these or any other

issues, including requests for a departure based on § 5K1.1, shall be filed with the Court no later

than seven (7) days prior to the sentencing hearing. The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence

scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate order.

SO ORDERED on September 10, 2013. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION, CHICOINE V PHEAA, NO. 17-CV-00926 JST

Mark F. Anderson (SBN 44787)

ANDERSON, OGILVIE & BREWER LLP

1736 Stockton Street, Ground Floor

San Francisco, CA 94133

Phone: (415) 651-1951

mark@aoblawyers.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Heather L. Chicoine

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HEATHER L. CHICOINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

PENNSYLVANIA, HIGHER 

EDUCATION ASSISTANCE

AGENCY, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 17-cv-00926-JST

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL 

OF ENTIRE ACTION

___________________________________)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff Heather Chicoine and 

defendant Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency and through their 

respective counsel of record that all matters herein between them have been 

compromised and settled, and that plaintiff’s cause against Pennsylvania Higher 

Education Assistance Agency shall be dismissed, with prejudice, with each party to bear 

their own costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. § 41(a)(1)(ii).

Dated: August 29, 2017 MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP 

By: /s/ Donald E. Bradley (SBN 145037) Attorneys for Defendant Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency

Case 3:17-cv-00926-JST Document 44 Filed 08/29/17 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

2

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION, CHICOINE V PHEAA, NO. 17-CV-00926 JST

Dated: August 29, 2017 ANDERSON, OGILVIE & BREWER

By: /s/ Mark F. Anderson Attorney for Plaintiff Heather L. Chicoine

 

Case 3:17-cv-00926-JST Document 44 Filed 08/29/17 Page 2 of 2