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

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3536-1 Filed: 08/13/19 Entered: 08/13/19 15:36:31 Page 1

of 3
[[DMS:5221365v1:07/30/2019--04:51 PM]]

+1-212-474-1261

mkozycz@cravath.com

July 30, 2019

PG&E Chapter 11 Proceedings, No. 19-30088 N.D. Cal

Dear Counsel:

Pacific Gas and Electric Company and PG&E Corporation (together, “PG&E” or, 

the “Debtors”), hereby produce the documents contained in PGE-BK-VOL012 and 

identify the documents referenced below to the Tort Claimants Committee (“TCC,” and 

collectively with PG&E, the “Parties”) in response to Exhibit C of the TCC’s April 30, 

2019, letter to the Court (“Exhibit C”). The Debtors are producing these documents 

pursuant to the Order Governing Discovery By and Among Debtors, Official Committee 

of Unsecured Creditors, and Official Committee of Tort Claimants entered by the Court 

on July 1, 2019. We have attempted to identify the primary Requests to which the 

documents are responsive.

PGE-BK-VOL012 contains documents responsive to Request 16 of Exhibit C, as 

negotiated by the Parties and as ordered by the Court in its May 28, 2019 Order. These 

documents bear Bates numbers PGE-BK-0000039335-PGE-BK-0000039380. PGE-BKVOL012 is being sent to you by secure FTP, the password for which you will receive 

contemporaneously with this letter. 

PG&E believes that PGE-BK-VOL012 completes its production of responsive, 

non-privileged documents in response to Exhibit C. PG&E also believes that it has 

completed of its production of responsive, non-privileged documents within PG&E’s 

possession in response to Attachment A of the Ex Parte Application of the TCC Pursuant 

to Bankruptcy Rule 2004 for Orders Authorizing Production of Documents dated April 

30, 2019 (“Attachment A”).

As discussed during our Meet and Confer on July 30, 2019, I can confirm that we 

are endeavoring to identify PG&E’s punitive damages policies that were in effect in 2015 

and the policies covering directors and officers for 2016 and we will produce those 

documents once identified, to the extent they have not already been produced. We are 

also confirming whether PG&E has certificates of liability insurance or proofs of 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3536-1 Filed: 08/13/19 Entered: 08/13/19 15:36:31 Page 2

of 3
2

[[DMS:5221365v1:07/30/2019--04:51 PM]]

coverage for the third party contractors identified in response to Request 25 of 

Attachment A and whether there are types of insurance, other than general liability 

insurance, punitive damages insurance and Directors and Officers’ insurance, that would 

cover liability related to the Wildfires. 

Regards,

/s/ Monica Kozycz

Monica Kozycz

Robert A. Julian

Kimberly Morris

 Baker Hostetler

11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Copy to:

Richard Slack

Jessica Liou

Kevin Kramer

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Ave. 

New York, NY 10153

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3536-1 Filed: 08/13/19 Entered: 08/13/19 15:36:31 Page 3

of 3
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6095

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MCKINLEY TERRELL JAMES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (7:04-cr-00118-FL; 7:06-cv-00041-FL) Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 27, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. McKinley Terrell James, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: McKinley Terrell James seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that James has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5331 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5331

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 73839 Gorgonio Drive in Twentynine Palms, California, as the 
        ``Colonel M.J. `Mac' Dube, USMC Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. COLONEL M.J. ``MAC'' DUBE, USMC POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 73839 Gorgonio Drive in Twentynine Palms, California, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Colonel M.J. `Mac' Dube, USMC Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Colonel 
M.J. `Mac' Dube, USMC Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 17, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5331

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 73839 Gorgonio Drive in Twentynine Palms, California, as the 
        ``Colonel M.J. `Mac' Dube, USMC Post Office Building''.
```
Signed and Filed: February 12, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

February 12, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 416 Filed: 02/12/19 Entered: 02/12/19 16:00:10 Page 1 of 2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 416 Filed: 02/12/19 Entered: 02/12/19 16:00:10 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CertificationPursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002(Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. Section  1350(A) And (B))**

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18U.S.C. Section 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies inhis capacity as an officer of Metaldyne Corporation (the “Company”) that theQuarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 2,2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information containedin such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company at the end of and for theperiods covered by such Report.
| Date: May 12, 2006 |     | /s/ JEFFREY M.  STAFEIL                                 |
|-------------------------|----------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |     | Jeffrey M. Stafeil                                      |
| * *                | * * | *Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer* |
| * *                | * * | *(Chief Accounting Officer and Authorized  Signatory)*  |

 

----
#### B. G. THOMPSON v. L. F. HERRING and MRS. ELMETTA HERRING.

(Filed 29 June, 1932.)

Abatement and Revival B b — Actions and parties held not the same and plea in abatement in second action was bad.

An action by tbe maker to recover for tbe wrongful sale of certain cotton hypothecated as collateral for a note will not support a plea in abatement in an action instituted by tbe payee against tbe maker and guarantor to recover on tbe note and tbe letter of hypothecation, tbe parties not being the same and tbe causes of action being different.

Appeal by defendants from *Cowper, Special Judge,*at March Term, 1932, of WayNe.

Civil action to recover on promissory note and letter of hypothecation-.

On 14 January, 1931, L. E. Herring instituted an action in Greene County against B. G. Thompson to recover damages for wrongful sale of certain cotton hypothecated as collateral to Herring’s note. Summons was served 16 January, and complaint filed 20 January.

On 15 January, 1931, B. G. Thompson instituted this action in Wayne County against L. E. Herring and Mrs. Elmetta Herring to recover on promissory note and letter of hypothecation. Duly verified complaint was filed with issuance of summons and both served on defendants 17 J anuary.

Plea in abatement is filed by tbe defendants on tbe ground that tbe same subject-matter is involved in tbe action instituted in Greene County by L. E. Herring against B. G. Thompson.

*113From the overruling of the plea in abatement, the defendants appeal, assigning errors.

*Dickinson & Freeman for plaintiff.*

*J. Faison Thomson, Walter G. Shepard and Hugh Brown Campbell for defendants.*

Stacy, C. J.,

after stating the case: The plea in abatement was properly overruled. *Brown v. Polk,*201 N. C., 375, 160 S. E., 357. The parties are not the same and the causes of action are different in the two suits. A final judgment in the action brought in Greene County by L. E. -Herring against B. G. Thompson would not support a plea of *res judicata*in the present action instituted in Wayne County. This is one of the tests of identity. *Bank v. Broadhurst,*197 N. C., 365, 148 S. E., 452.

Affirmed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re )

) Case No. 

) 

) Chapter

Debtor(s). )

____________________________________)

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF 

ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

, whose business address and telephone number is

and who is an active member in good standing of the bar of

having applied in the above-entitled action for admission to practice in the Northern District of

California on a pro hac vice basis, representing

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application is granted, subject to the terms and

conditions of Civil L.R. 11-3. All papers filed by the attorney must indicate appearance pro hac

vice. Service of papers upon and communication with co-counsel designated in the application

will constitute notice to the represented party. All future filings in this action are subject to the

Bankruptcy Local Rules and Electronic Case Filing Procedures adopted by the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. 

Dated: ____________________________________

United States Bankruptcy Judge

19-30088-DM; 19-30089-DM

11

PG&E CORPORATION; 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Andrew Rosenblatt

Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, 

Telephone 212-408-5100 

New York

NextEra Energy, Inc., et al. 

Hon. Dennis Montali

Signed and Filed: February 15, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

February 15, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 463 Filed: 02/15/19 Entered: 02/15/19 15:31:40 Page 1 of 1
** **

**Exhibit32.1**

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO and CFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of HCW Pension Real EstateFund Limited Partnership (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the ChiefExecutive Officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalentof the Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
#### Commonwealth, Appellant, *v.*Lewis

(No. 3),

Argued Oct. 3,1905.

Appeal, No. 138, Oct. T., 1905, by plaintiff, from judgment of Q. S. Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1904, No. 470, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. G. Lambert Lewis.

Before Rice, P. J., Orlady, Smith, Porter, Morrison and Henderson, JJ.

Reversed.

October 23,1905 :

Per Curiam,

The sentence of the court of quarter sessions in this .case is reversed and set aside, and the record is remitted to the said court with direction to proceed to sentence defendant anew in due order and according-to law.
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3860    Filed: 09/10/19    Entered: 09/10/19 13:13:49    Page 1 of2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3860    Filed: 09/10/19    Entered: 09/10/19 13:13:49    Page 2 of2
#### BAXTER C. RICH v. THE TOWN OF ASHEBORO.

(Filed 3 November, 1954.)

Municipal Corporations § 14a—

Nonsuit *field*properly entered in tbis action by plaintiff to recover for injuries resulting when he stepped from the paved sidewalk to an unpaved grass plot between the sidewalk and the street, and struck his foot against a rock protruding about two inches above the level of the unpaved grass plot.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Rousseau, J.,*at March Civil Term 1954, of Eandolph.

Civil action to recover damages for personal injury sustained by plaintiff in the town of Asheboro on 11 May, 1951, allegedly the result of negligence of defendant, a municipal corporation, under these circumstances:

The scene of the injury, Church Street, runs north and south. It intersects with Hoover Street which runs east and west. There is a paved sidewalk approximately four and a half or five feet wide on west side of Church Street. Between this hard surface and the street there is an unpaved grass plot approximately two and a half feet wide.

When going south on the paved sidewalk on Church Street, approaching, and about twenty feet from Hoover Street, plaintiff, observing a man across the street whom he wanted to see, stepped down on to the said unpaved grass plot, and hit “his toe over a rock,” the color of the ground, and sticking “up about two inches high.”

Plaintiff testified: “I have probably known this place for 20 or 25 years. I never had seen the rock sticking out of the ground until I hit my foot on it ... I have been going along this particular road for 15 years. The same path that I take each time. I walk on the cement . . . I do not know whether the city knew there was a rock sticking up. As to why I didn’t go down the paved portion of this sidewalk and cross where it is marked and stay on the part that was paved, I wanted to see Mr. Brown over there . . .”

Motion for judgment as of nonsuit was granted at close of plaintiff’s evidence, and from judgment in accordance therewith, plaintiff appeals to the Supreme Court and assigns error.

*76
      *Ottivay Burton for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Archie L. Smith for defendant, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

The ruling of the trial court upon the motion for non-suit finds support in the cases of *Gettys v. Town of Marion,*218 N.C. 266, 10 S.E. 2d 799, and *Waters v. Town of Belhaven,*222 N.C. 20, 21 S.E. 2d 840, under authority of which the judgment below is

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 11

                       COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                   EXHIBIT 11
               INTERCELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY
                             (Debtor-In-Possession)
                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)

                                                      Three Months Ended                  Six Months Ended
                                                          March 31,                          March 31,

                                                    2005              2004             2005             2004
                                                    ----              ----             ----             ----
<S>                                           <C>               <C>               <C>              <C>

Net loss                                      $( 52,661)        ( 394,714)        ( 248,498)       ( 504,880)
                                                =======          ========          ========         ========

Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding                    23,836,323       20,047,038        23,847,655       19,296,682
Common equivalent shares
  representing shares issuable
  upon exercise of outstanding
  options and warrants and
  convertible stock                                    -                 -                 -                -
                                              ----------        ----------        ----------       ----------
                                              23,836,323        20,047,038        23,847,655       19,296,682
                                              ==========        ==========        ==========       ==========
Basic and diluted loss per
  share applicable to
  common shareholders                         $        *            (0.02)            (0.01)           (0.03)
                                               =========        ==========        ==========       ==========
</TABLE>



* Less than $(0.01) per share.

Stock options, warrants and convertible preferred stock are not considered in
the calculations for those periods with net losses as the impact of the
potential common shares (approximately 12,396,350 at March 31, 2005 and
14,163,850 shares at March 31, 2004) would be to decrease net loss per share.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7268

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRY KERMIT JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:98-cr-00289-RLV; 5:03-cv-00049-RLV) Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 24, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry Kermit Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Terry Kermit Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Cecilia Zielinski, Deceased. Barbara Moczulski, Appellant; Eugene J. Zielinski, Respondent. Eugene J. Zielinski et al., Respondents, v Barbara Moczulski, Appellant.

Submitted December 4, 1995;

decided February 13, 1996

Motion for reargument granted, the October 24, 1995 order of dismissal vacated *[see,*86 NY2d 861] and, upon reargument, motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action or proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13704-2 Filed: 05/08/23 Entered: 05/08/23 19:09:59 Page 1

of 5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13704-2 Filed: 05/08/23 Entered: 05/08/23 19:09:59 Page 2

of 5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13704-2 Filed: 05/08/23 Entered: 05/08/23 19:09:59 Page 3

of 5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13704-2 Filed: 05/08/23 Entered: 05/08/23 19:09:59 Page 4

of 5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13704-2 Filed: 05/08/23 Entered: 05/08/23 19:09:59 Page 5

of 5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4158 Filed: 10/07/19 Entered: 10/08/19 12:00:23 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4158 Filed: 10/07/19 Entered: 10/08/19 12:00:23 Page 2 of

2