alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
David J. Richardson

direct dial: 310-442-8858

drichardson@bakerlaw.com

BakerHostetler

1160 Battery Street East

Suite 100

San Francisco, CA 94111

T: 310.442.8899

F: 310.820.8859

www.bakerlaw.com November 4, 2019

VIA ECF

Honorable Dennis Montali

United States Bankruptcy Court

Northern District of California

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: In re PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Case No. 19-30088 

(DM) (Jointly Administered)

Dear Judge Montali:

On behalf of the Official Committee of Tort Claimants (the “TCC”), I write to join in the letter of 

this same date from Alan J. Stone, counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the 

“UCC”), concerning the Debtor’s pending Motion for Entry of Orders (I) Approving Terms of, and 

Debtors’ Entry Into and Performance Under, Exit Financing Commitment Letters and (II) 

Authorizing Incurrence, Payment, and Allowance of Related Fees and/or Premiums, Indemnities, 

Costs and Expenses as Administrative Expense Claims (the “Motion”) [Docket No. 4446].

While the TCC joins in the issues raised in the UCC’s letter, the TCC believes that the appropriate 

resolution for the pending disputes is a continuance of the current hearing date. The parties are 

embarking this week on a mediation process that involves Governor Newsom and Judge 

Newsome, and the Motion is antithetical to this process of open negotiation. The Motion seeks to 

bind the Debtors to one-year bridge financing that the Debtors, by their own admission in their 

Motion, “do not expect to draw upon.” Motion, p. 5, fn. 6. The fees for this unnecessary financing 

could exceed $1 billion, and would be paid primarily to the Debtors’ equityholders. The many 

reasons why the proposed financing is unnecessary and why the Motion should be denied will be 

addressed in the TCC’s opposition brief when it is due. But for purposes of the current discovery 

dispute, and in conjunction with the unfolding mediation process, the TCC believes that the 

hearing on this Motion should be continued at least to a date in early December, both to permit 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4575 Filed: 11/04/19 Entered: 11/04/19 17:10:57 Page 1 of

2
Honorable Dennis Montali

November 4, 2019

Page 2

sufficient discovery to be taken, and to ensure that the mediation process is not hampered by the 

predetermination of troublesome plan terms. 

Sincerely,

/s/ David J. Richardson

David J. Richardson

Counsel to the Official Committee of Tort Claimants

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4575 Filed: 11/04/19 Entered: 11/04/19 17:10:57 Page 2 of

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      12,890,224
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          53,152
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            11,000,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 40,325,095
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      16,731,169
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        17,651,135
<LOANS>                                    145,207,201
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,685,688
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             235,816,742
<DEPOSITS>                                 216,994,125
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            885,230
<LONG-TERM>                                  3,543,973
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,262,857
<COMMON>                                       160,176
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,970,381
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             235,816,742
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,961,806
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,634,679
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               349,737
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             8,946,222
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,182,996
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,312,674
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        5,633,548
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  496,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              5,136,454
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,652,108
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,231,160
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .63
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.57
<LOANS-NON>                                    341,419
<LOANS-PAST>                                   322,080
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,414,826
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  308,267
<RECOVERIES>                                    83,129
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,685,688
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            80,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      1,605,688
        

</TABLE>
#### Odell Reynolds et al., Respondents, v Linda Arnold, Appellant.

Submitted February 5,1996;

decided February 15, 1996

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, *sua sponte,*upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question (CPLR 5601).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          31,181
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,062
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    122,288
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           3,848
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             3,860
<LOANS>                                        836,243
<ALLOWANCE>                                     12,720
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,011,990
<DEPOSITS>                                     810,897
<SHORT-TERM>                                    71,598
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,651
<LONG-TERM>                                     52,060
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,646
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,138
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,011,990
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 34,467
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,974
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   368
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                38,809
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              16,660
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,041
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           18,768
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      370
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,008
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 13,888
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,326
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      11,326
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,436
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.99
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,595
<LOANS-PAST>                                        87
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    13
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  5,168
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                13,174
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,248
<RECOVERIES>                                       424
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               12,720
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,902
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,818






</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      11,705,160
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          16,237
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            18,600,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 54,065,885
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      19,245,741
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        20,297,153
<LOANS>                                    155,798,516
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,883,553
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             270,432,493
<DEPOSITS>                                 250,018,682
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            885,231
<LONG-TERM>                                  3,392,993
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,225,522
<COMMON>                                       244,431
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,665,634
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             270,432,493
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,757,538
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              945,661
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               158,633
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,861,832
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,775,266
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,839,692
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,022,140
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  266,950
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,903,093
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                761,237
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     596,850
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   596,850
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.95
<LOANS-NON>                                    636,943
<LOANS-PAST>                                   596,072
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,860,490
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  284,180
<RECOVERIES>                                    40,293
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,883,553
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            40,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      1,843,553
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of James D. Fleet, Appellant, v Geanine Scarola, Respondent.

Submitted December 26,1995;

decided February 20, 1996

Motion for leave to appeal denied. Cross motion for the imposition of sanctions, etc., denied.
#### In the Matter of John P. McEvoy et al., Appellants, v Vincent J. Velella et al., as the Board of Elections in the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 12, 1996;

decided February 14, 1996

*945On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied.
Exhibit 10.2

Separation Agreement

This SEPARATION AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into as of the 23rd day of June, 2003 (the "Effective Date"), by and between Carreker Corporation
("Carreker") (for itself, its predecessors, successors, subsidiary and affiliated entities, shareholders, officers, directors, executors, administrators, agents, fiduciaries, legal representatives,
insurers, employee benefit plans, employee benefit plan fiduciaries, employees, former employees, and owners, all individually and in their official capacities), and Terry L. Gage (for himself, his
spouse, agents, predecessors, successors, assigns, heirs, executors, beneficiaries, administrators, and legal representatives) (the "Employee"). The Employee and Carreker are collectively referred to
herein as the "Parties."

WHEREAS,
the Employee and Carreker have agreed to terminate their employment relationship as of June 30, 2003; and

NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the amounts to be paid under this Agreement, and the mutual promises, covenants and agreements set forth below, and in full compromise, release and
settlement, accord and satisfaction, and discharge of all claims or causes of action, known or unknown, possessed by or belonging to the Employee, other than those arising under the Surviving
Obligations (as defined below), the Parties knowingly and voluntarily acknowledge, agree to and do represent and warrant the following:

1

---



2

---



3

---



4

---



5

---





6

---

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the            day of June, 2003.

|Employee:                  |  |  |  |                          
|-------------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------
|Sign: /s/ Terry L. Gage    |  |  |  | Print Name: Terry L. Gage
|                           |  |  |  |                          
|Date: June 22, 2003        |  |  |  |                          
|Carreker Corporation:      |  |  |  |                          
|By: /s/ Tod V. Mongan      |  |  |  | Print Name: Tod V. Mongan
|                           |  |  |  |                          
|Its: Senior Vice President |  |  |  | Date: June 22, 2003      
|                           |  |  |  |                          

7

---

EXHIBIT A

1.     Computer
Equipment. Laptop computer, computer monitor, keyboard, mouse and docking station currently utilized in Employee's office.

2.     License
or right to use Microsoft Office and an appropriate Microsoft operating system.

3.     Copy
of agreements or other documents constituting the Surviving Obligations.

4.     Benefits
information relating to benefits available to Employee following termination.

5.     Leather
bound closing binders, mementos and other items given to Employee as keepsakes in connection with transactions.

8

---

QuickLinks
Order entered January 5, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00449-CV

FRANCIE RACHAL, Appellant

V.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE, IN 

TRUST FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF MORGAN STANLEY 

ABS CAPITAL I INC. TRUST 2006-HE8 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH 

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-HE8, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 002-00452-2020

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s December 30, 2020 motion to extend time to 

file her brief. Appellant seeks a ninety-day extension.

We note the brief was first due June 29, 2020. We further note three 

extensions totaling 185 days have previously been granted, and our order granting 

the last extension cautioned appellant that failure to file the brief by January 11, 

2021 could result in dismissal of the appeal.
The appeal cannot move forward without appellant’s brief. Given the delay 

that has already occurred, we DENY the motion. On the Court’s own motion, we 

ORDER the brief be filed no later than January 22, 2021. We caution appellant 

that further extension motions will not be entertained and failure to file the brief 

will result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b),(c).

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5331 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5331

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                                 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''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
EX-35 (b)

(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

March 23, 2007

Financial Asset Securities Corporation

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006-EQ2

Per Section 3.20 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 12/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Master Servicer), hereby
certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:


(a)     a review of the party's activities during the immediately preceding
        calendar year (or applicable portion thereof) and of its performance
        under this Agreement during such period has been made under such
        officer's supervision, and

(b)     to the best of such officers' knowledge, based on such review, the party
        has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all
        material respects throughout such calendar year (or applicable portion
        thereof) or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation
        in any material respect, specifically identifying each such failure
        known to such officer and the nature and the status thereof.


Certified By:
/s/ Scott Strack
Scott Strack, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
#### Robert LOWTHER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E. L. MAXWELL, Warden, Ohio Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16137.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

July 2, 1965.

Robert Lowther, in pro. per.

William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen. of Ohio, Leo J. Conway, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, for appellee.

Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and CECIL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order of the District Court denying petitioner-appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Appellant had been convicted by a jury in the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, of first degree murder on Count I of an indictment which charged him with killing Rudolph Kordis in the perpetration of a robbery. He was also convicted of second degree murder on *942Count II which charged him with killing Kordis with deliberate and premeditated malice. The jury recommended mercy on the first count and he was sentenced to life imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.

Appellant argues that he killed only one man, and that he has been placed in jeopardy twice for the commission of a single offense. This point was never raised in a direct appeal in the Ohio courts, but only in a habeas corpus proceeding.

The offenses of which Appellant was convicted were separate and distinct under Ohio law. Ohio Rev.Code § 2901.-01. Different evidence was required to establish each offense. Conviction on one count did not place him in double jeopardy so as to prevent conviction on another count for a different offense. State v. Ferguson, 175 Ohio St. 390, 195 N.E.2d 794 (1964); Vertz v. Sacks, 173 Ohio St. 459, 183 N.E.2d 924 (1962).

The conviction of first degree murder, however, was for a greater offense than second degree. If the death penalty had been imposed on Count I, as authorized under Ohio law when the jury does not recommend mercy, the life sentence for second degree murder would have been regarded as surplusage. State v. Ferguson, supra.

In any event, Appellant is in custody under a life sentence lawfully imposed by the Court on Count I of the indictment. Until he is released from custody under that sentence, the remedy of habeas corpus is not available to attack the validity of the sentence under Count II. Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 78 S.Ct. 1280, 2 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1957); McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238 (1934) ; Lowther v. Maxwell, 175 Ohio St. 39, 191 N.E.2d 172 (1963); Page v. Green, Supt., 174 Ohio St. 178, 187 N.E.2d 592 (1963).

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 22, 2020

a0415 

# Order

Clerk April 22, 2020

160423

LINDA HOULE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 160423

COA: 348480

Bay CC: 17

- 003755

- AV

EMC DEVELOPMENT and EDWARD M.

CZUPRYNSKI,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 11, 2019

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for

consideration as on leave granted.