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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

COMPANY,

Defendant. /

No. CR 14-00175 WHA

REQUEST FOR OFFENDER

PG&E TO SUPPLY

INFORMATION

1. The Court has read the report in the Wall Street Journal dated July 10, 2019, bearing the

headline “PG&E Knew for years Its Lines Could Spark Wildfires, and Didn’t Fix

Them.” PG&E is hereby ordered to file a public statement with the Court responding to

the report on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis stating the extent to which each paragraph

is accurate. The offender (PG&E) may not evade response by saying, for example, that

it cannot know what documents the Wall Street Journal reviewed. The offender should

know the extent to which the story is accurate or not since the report covers what PG&E

knows internally. In the past, the offender has responded to some of the Court’s

questions by filing thousands of records and leaving it to the judge to find the needles in

the haystacks. This time, the offender must provide a fresh, forthright statement owning

up to the true extent of the Wall Street Journal report. The offender’s response shall be

up to 40 DOUBLE-SPACED PAGES. 

2. Separately, in 10 DOUBLE-SPACED PAGES or less, the offender shall answer the

following questions: 

Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1075 Filed 07/10/19 Page 1 of 2

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3062-2 Filed: 07/18/19 Entered: 07/18/19 14:25:47 Page 1

of 2
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

2

a. The Court has learned from ABC news that PG&E has made large

campaign contributions to political candidates, even quite recently. The

offender shall set forth the full amount of campaign contributions and to

whom such contributions were made to by PG&E since January 1, 2017,

and shall explain why those campaign contributions were more important

that replacing or repairing the aging transmission lines described by the

Wall Street Journal article and removing or trimming the backlog of

hazard trees, and increasing vegetation management. 

b. PG&E has distributed almost five billion dollars in dividends prior to

seeking the protection of the Bankruptcy Court. Please also explain why

so much was paid out in dividends at a time when PG&E was aware of

the problems named in the Wall Street Journal report and knew of its

hazard tree backlog. 

Both responses by the offender are due JULY 31, 2019 AT NOON.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2019. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1075 Filed 07/10/19 Page 2 of 2

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3062-2 Filed: 07/18/19 Entered: 07/18/19 14:25:47 Page 2

of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5276 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5276

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat bicycle sharing 
   systems as mass transit facilities for purposes of the qualified 
                         transportation fringe.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2014

  Mr. Crowley (for himself and Mr. Paulsen) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat bicycle sharing 
   systems as mass transit facilities for purposes of the qualified 
                         transportation fringe.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Bike to Work Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. BICYCLE SHARING SYSTEMS TREATED AS MASS TRANSIT FACILITIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 132(f)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(G) Bicycle sharing systems treated as mass 
                transit facilities.--
                            ``(i) In general.--A bicycle sharing system 
                        shall be treated as a mass transit facility for 
                        purposes of subparagraph (A)(i).
                            ``(ii) Bicycle sharing system.--The term 
                        `bicycle sharing system' means a public 
                        transportation system--
                                    ``(I) consisting of a network of 
                                stations at which bicycles are made 
                                available to customers for commuting 
                                and short-term, point-to-point use 
                                within the network's service area; and
                                    ``(II) that is operated or 
                                authorized by a government agency or 
                                public-private partnership.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to months beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT D

PG&E Corporation and PG&E Company, et.al.

Summary of Out of Pocket Expenses

June 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019

Category Amount

Airfare 18,321.00 $ 

Lodging 21,268.11 $ 

Meals $ 3,503.63

Ground Transportation 8,010.03 $ 

Miscellaneous - $ 

Total $ 51,102.77

Case No. 19-30088

KPMG LLP Monthly Fee Statement Page 201 of 217

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4101-4 Filed: 10/04/19 Entered: 10/04/19 09:29:22 Page 1

of 1
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4035    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:30:19    Page 1 of2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4035    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:30:19    Page 2 of2
Exhibit 13.2

Certification by the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

In connection with the Annual Report of 3SBio Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Clara Mak, Chief Financial 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) | 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: June 29, 2007



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/     Clara Mak      
|Name:  |  | Clara Mak              
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

                                SAVWATT USA, INC.
                             A Delaware Corporation
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with this  Amendment  No. 3 to the Annual Report of SavWatt USA,
Inc.  ("Company")  on Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 2009,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Isaac H. Sutton, President and Chief Financial Officer,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.


Dated: January 28, 2011                    /s/ Isaac H. Sutton
                                           -------------------------------------
                                      By:  Isaac H. Sutton
                                      Its: President and Chief Financial Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
                                           (Principal Financial Officer
* The court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30179

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STEVE CORTEZ HALL,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CR-70-B-M2

- - - - - - - - - -

May 14, 1997

Before Wisdom, King, and Smith, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Steve Cortez Hall appeals his conviction on two counts of

distribution of cocaine base, conspiracy to possess with intent

to distribute cocaine base and cocaine hydrochloride, and

distribution of cocaine. His sole contention is that his guilty

plea is invalid because the district court did not properly

advise him under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1).
1 See United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 302 (5th Cir.

1993) (en banc).

Because the district court emphasized several times that the

defendant was subject to the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence;

the district court’s misstatement, on one occasion, that the

defendant was subject to a two-year minimum sentence was harmless

error. Further, because Hall was subject to the ten-year minimum

sentence on counts 1 and 3, the district court’s overstatement of

the mandatory minimum sentence on Counts 2 and 4 was harmless

error.1

 AFFIRMED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1514** 

NOBLE R. MANN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. James R. Spencer , District Judge. ( 3:13

- cv - 00068

- JRS )

Submitted : July 1, 2013 Decided: July 15, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Noble R. Mann, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Dale Wilson, III, KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Noble R. Mann appeals the district court ’ s order granting the Appellee’s motion to dismiss his Title VII complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). * This c ourt reviews de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim un der Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Philips v. Pitt C nty . Mem’l Hosp. , 572 F.3d 176, 179

- 80 (4th Cir. 2009). A claimant who fails to file a complaint within the ninety

- day statutory time period mandated by Title VII generally forfeits his right to pursue his claims. See Baldwin C nty . Welcome Ctr. v. Brown , 466 U.S. 147, 149

- 51 (1984). The ninety

day period begins as of receipt of the right

- to

- sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) . 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

- 5(f)(1) (2006). The ninety

- day statute of limitations period for Title VII actions is not tolled because the initial action was dismissed without prejudice. See O’Donnell v. Vencor
Inc. , 466 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2006); Price v. Digital Equip
. Corp. , 846 F.2d 1026, 1027 (5th Ci r. 1988). When the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses a lawsuit governed by a federal statutory limitations period, the state savings statutes do not apply. Beck v. Caterpillar Inc. , 50 F.3d 405, 407 (7th Cir.

* Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq .3 1995); Victor Foods, Inc. v. Crossroads Econ
. D ev. of St. Charles C nty . , Inc. , 977 F.2d 1224, 1227 (8th Cir. 1992) (state savings statute did not toll federal limitations period)
. Mann’s right

- to

- sue letter issued by the EEOC is dated July 16, 2010. Mann’s complaint was filed , the earliest, January 26, 2012, or clearly beyond the statutory ninety

- day limit. Because Virginia’s savings statute under Va. Code Ann.
§ 8.01

- 229(E)(3) (2007) does not operate to toll a federal statutory limitations period, Mann’s Title VII complaint was untimely. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We deny Mann’s motion to place the appeal in abeyance. See 50 App.
U.S.C. A. § 522(b)(2)(A), (B) ( West Supp. 2013 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00354

- CR

Robert Earl Bell, Jr.

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 3

o f Tarrant County (1165059D )

May 29, 2014

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot

______________ Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 1of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 2of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 3of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 4of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 5of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 6of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 7of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 8of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 9of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 10of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 11of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 12of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 13of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 14of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 15of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 16of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 17of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 18of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 19of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 20of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 21of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 22of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 23of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 24of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 25of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 26of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 27of 28

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034-1    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 28of 28
#### John P. Simcoe, Respondent, v. George W. Simcoe, appellant.

— Judgment of the Uounty Courtof Chemung county affirmed,with costs. Opinion by

Follett, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,371
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,797
<ALLOWANCES>                                       170
<INVENTORY>                                     13,336
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,759
<PP&E>                                          22,727
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,929
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,925
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,844
<BONDS>                                         20,784
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            3,583
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,119
<OTHER-SE>                                    (17,380)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,925
<SALES>                                         20,815
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,815
<CGS>                                           16,742
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,361
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    40
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,391
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,719)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,719)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,719)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION and PACIFIC GAS 

AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

 Debtors 

Chapter 11 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

(Jointly Administered) 

TRANSFER OF CLAIM OTHER THAN FOR SECURITY 

A CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE or deemed filed under 11 U.S.C. § 1111(a). 

Transferee hereby gives evidence and notice pursuant to Rule 3001(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of 

Bankruptcy Procedure of the transfer, other than for security, of the claim referenced in this 

evidence and notice. 

YSI Inc. Cherokee Debt Acquisition, LLC 

Name of Transferor Name of Transferee

Claim No: 2172

Debtor: PG&E Corporation 

(19-30088) 

Claim Amount: $5,581.28 

Name and Address where notices and payments 

to transferee should be sent: 

Cherokee Debt Acquisition, LLC 

1325 Avenue of the Americas, 28th Floor 

New York, NY 10019 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this notice is true and correct 

to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

By: _____________________ Date: August 8, 2019 

Transferee/Transferee’s Agent

Penalty for making a false statement: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, 

or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152 & 3571. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3461 Filed: 08/08/19 Entered: 08/08/19 11:58:19 Page 1 of

2
CHEROKE DEBT ACQUISITION, LLC

1325 Avenue of the Americas, 28th Floor

New York, NY 10019

Attn: Vladimir Jelisavcic

5,581.28

100

CHEROKEE DEBT ACQUISITION, LLC

Vladimir Jelisavcic

Manager

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3461 Filed: 08/08/19 Entered: 08/08/19 11:58:19 Page 2 of

2
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C SECTON 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Stanley R. Rosenthal, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of All-State
Properties L.P. for the three months ended September 30, 2007
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such quarterly report on Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of All-State Properties L.P.


Date:  November 13, 2007



/s/ Stanley R. Rosenthal
Stanley R. Rosenthal
General Partner
#### LEONARD LEWISOHN and Others, Respondents, *v.*BERTRAM NIEDERWIESEN and ALFRED APPLE, Appellants.

*Practice*— an *appeal will not be considered unless the appeal papers have been certified as required by section*1353 *of the Code of Civil Procedure.*

Upon the hearing of an appeal taken from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, entered upon the verdict of a jury, the respondents objected that the appeal book had not been certified as required by section 1353 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

*Held,*that the objection was valid and prevented the court from considering the case.

The observance of the duty imposed by the said section is regarded as extremely important.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, entered on the verdict of a jury.

*J. JE.*Newberger, for the appellants,

*J. I.*Bamberger, for the respondents.

Per Curiam :

This case was submitted, and the first point taken by the respondent is that the appeal book has not been certified, as required *546by section 1353 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This objection we regard as valid, and the effect of it is to prevent the consideration of the case.

*We*refrain from any consideration of the merits, and send the-case bach to be properly certified. The observance of the duty imposed by section 1353 is regarded as extremely important. The-object of the section is undoubtedly for the purpose of securing the presentation to the appellate court of the entire proceedings-sought to be reviewed.-

Case sent bach to be properly certified.

Present — Brady, P. J., Daniels and Maoomber, JJ.

Case sent bach for such action or proceeding as counsel may deem advisable.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4184 Filed: 10/10/19 Entered: 10/10/19 15:24:25 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4184 Filed: 10/10/19 Entered: 10/10/19 15:24:25 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4184 Filed: 10/10/19 Entered: 10/10/19 15:24:25 Page 3 of

3