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

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153-0119

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

Stephen Karotkin (pro hac vice)

(stephen.karotkin@weil.com)

Ray C. Schrock, P.C. (pro hac vice)

(ray.schrock@weil.com) 

Jessica Liou (pro hac vice)

(jessica.liou@weil.com) 

Matthew Goren (pro hac vice)

(matthew.goren@weil.com)

New York, NY 10153-0119

Tel: (212) 310-8000

Fax: (212) 310-8007

KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP

Tobias S. Keller (#151445)

(tkeller@kellerbenvenutti.com)

Jane Kim (#298192)

(jkim@kellerbenvenutti.com)

650 California Street, Suite 1900

San Francisco, CA 94108

Tel: (415) 496-6723

Fax: (415) 636-9251

Attorneys for Debtors and Debtors in Possession

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION,

- and -

Bankruptcy Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION 

BETWEEN DEBTORS AND UNITED 

STATES OF AMERICA EXTENDING 

TIME TO RESPOND TO LEASE 

ASSUMPTION MOTION 

 

Re: Dkt. No. 3726

[No Hearing Requested]

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Debtors.

 ̈ Affects PG&E Corporation

 ̈ Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company

þ Affects both Debtors

* All papers shall be filed in the lead case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM)

Signed and Filed: September 6, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

September 06, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3835 Filed: 09/06/19 Entered: 09/06/19 15:01:17 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

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153-0119

The Court having considered the Stipulation Between Debtors and United States of 

America Extending Time to Respond to Lease Assumption Motion (“Stipulation”), entered into 

by PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, as debtors and debtors in 

possession (collectively, the “Debtors”), on the one hand, and the United States of America (the 

“United States”), on the other hand, filed on September 6, 2019; and, pursuant to such 

stipulation and agreement of the Parties, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The time for the United States to file and serve any response or opposition 

to the Lease Assumption Motion (as defined in the Stipulation) is extended through 4:00 p.m. 

(Pacific Time) on September 13, 2019.

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: 

Dated: September 6, 2019

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

CIVIL DIVISION

/s/ Danielle A. Pham

Danielle A. Pham

Attorneys for United States

**END OF ORDER**

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3835 Filed: 09/06/19 Entered: 09/06/19 15:01:17 Page 2 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

COBLENTZ 

PATCH 

DUFFY 

&

BASS LLP

One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, California 94104 -5500

415.391.4800 • Fax 415.989.1663

Exhibit A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4761-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Entered: 11/15/19 13:20:45 Page 1

of 3
Coblentz

Patch Dufiy

& Bass LLP

One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000

San Francisco, CA 941045500

415 391 4800

coblentzlawcom

Gregg M. Ficks

D 415.772.5779

gficks@coblentzlaw. corn

November 15, 2019

John R. Simon, Esq.

Executive Vice President and General

Counsel

PG&E Corporation

77 Beale Street

P.O. Box 770000

San Francisco, CA 94177

Janet Loduca, Esq.

Sr. Vice President and Deputy General

Counsel

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

77 Beale Street

P.O. Box 770000

San Francisco, CA 94177

Re: In re PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company;

First Interim Fee Application of Coblentz Patch Duffy& Bass LLP

Dear Mr. Simon and Ms. Loduca:

We are enclosing for your review a copy of the First Interim Fee Application of Coblentz

Patch Duffy & Bass LLP for Allowance and Payment of Compensation and Reimbursement of

Expenses (January 29, 2079 through September 30, 2019), and a copy of my Certification in

support thereof, which were filed yesterday in these bankruptcy cases.

The Court’s Guidelines for Compensation and Expense Reimbursement of Professionals

and Trustees provide that a debtor in possession, a trustee, or an official committee must

exercise reasonable business judgment in monitoring the fees and expenses of the estate’s

professionals. We invite you to discuss any objections, concerns, or questions you may have

with us. The Office of the United States Trustee also will accept your comments, and the Court

will consider timely filed objections by any party-in-interest at the time of the hearing on the

application.

If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call me or Barbara

Milanovich, Doug Sands, or Sean Coyle of this office.

Very truly yours,

Gregg M.

GMF/vxr

Enclosures

16213.101 4847-7072-0941.1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4761-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Entered: 11/15/19 13:20:45 Page 2

of 3
Coblentz

Patch Duffy

&BassLLP

John R. Simon, Esq.

Janet Loduca, Esq.

November 15, 2019

Page 2

cc (w/enclosures): Wendy Coleman, Esq.

Barbara Milanovich, Esq.

Doug Sands, Esq.

Sean Coyle, Esq.

16213.101 4847-7072-0941.1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4761-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Entered: 11/15/19 13:20:45 Page 3

of 3
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7566

THOMAS A. CHILTON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus ALTON BASKERVILLE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-904-3) Submitted: March 2, 2005 Decided: March 17, 2005 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas A. Chilton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a magistrate judge. See28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Thomas A. Chilton, Jr., seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order * denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chilton 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
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RICHARD K. INGLIS, as Special Trustee )

of the Trust Under the Last Will and )

Testament of Rosa B. Schweiker, dated )

February 2, 1961, BRUCE D. )

BERLINGER, as the Individual Trustee )

of the Trust Under the Last Will and )

Testament of Rosa B. Schweiker, dated )

February 2, 1961, and MICHAEL R. )

PRESLEY, as Individual Trustee of the )

Schweiker-Berlinger Irrevocable Life )

Insurance Trust, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-486

)

ROBERTA SUE CASSELBERRY, f/k/a )

SUE C. BERLINGER, )

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed June 15, 2018.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit 

Court for Collier County; Elizabeth V. Krier, 

Judge.

Robert M. Presley, and Michael R. 

Presley, of Presley and Presley, P.A., 

Wellington, for Petitioner Berlinger,

John D. Kehoe, of Cheffy Passidomo, 

P.A., Naples, for Petitioners Inglis and M. 

Presley.

Robert A. Stok and Joshua R. Kon, of Stok 

Folk + Kon, Aventura, for 

Respondent.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM.

Denied.

LaROSE, C.J., and BADALAMENTI and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14 
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934  I, Zhiguo Fu, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. (the Registrant), certify that: 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A (Amendment No. 1) for the period ended September 30, 2006 of the Registrant. 2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. 3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in the report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods, presented in the report. 4.   The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5.   The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent function): (a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Dated:  June 21, 2007/s/ Zhiguo Fu
Zhiguo Fu
Chief Executive Officer
#### Daniel Mack, Respondent, v. Robert Mills and others, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed.

Opinion by

Barker, J.;

Haight, J., not voting.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7065

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NAJAC PAUL, a/k/a Joseph Derrick, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-145-2, CA-98-372-2) Submitted: December 22, 1999 Decided: January 13, 2000 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Najac Paul, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Paul , Nos. CR-95-145-2; CA-98-372-2 (S.D.W. Va. July 2, 1999). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                            1921
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1292
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3213
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3213
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3480559
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (4261862)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3213
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               (10017)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               57715
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (113827)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (113827)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
NO. 07-05-0175-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D MAY 23, 2005

______________________________ RICK MARION HUBBARD, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTE R COUNTY; NO. 45,66 7-B; HONO RABLE J OHN B. BO ARD, JUD GE

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORAND UM OPINION Following a ple a of not guilty, appellant Rick Marion Hubbard was convicted of engaging in organized crim inal activity, and on January 12, 2005, punishment was assessed at 18 months confinement. Appellant timely filed amotion for newtrial; his notice of appeal was filed on April 18, 2 005. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.1 Appellant may haverecourseby filin g a post-convictio n writ of h abeas corpus returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration of an out-of-time appeal. Tex. Code Cri m. Proc. A nn. art. 1 1.07 (Ver non Supp . 2004-05 ). 2 When a timely motion for new trial is filed, a no tice of appeal is due to be file d with the trial court clerk within 90 days after the day sentence is impos ed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2 ). The deadline may be extended if, within 15 days, the party files the notice and
a motion complying with Ru le 10.5(b )(2) of theTexas R ules of A ppellate Procedu re. See Tex. R. App. P . 26.3. When a notice of appeal, but no motion for extension of time is filed within the 15-day window, this Court does not havejurisdiction to dispose of the appeal in any manner other than by dismissal for want of jur is diction. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Tex.Cr. App. 199 6) (en ba nc). See alsoSlaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (Tex.Cr.App. 1998). Additionally, we do not have authority to invoke Rule 2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in an effort to obtain jurisdiction of the case. Thus, we cannot create jur isdictio n where n one exi sts. Slaton , 981 S.W. 2d at 210

. Appellant’s sentence was imposed on January 12, 2005 , and following his timely motion for new trial, the deadline in which to file his notice of appeal, including the 15-day window, was extended to April 27, 2005. Although his notice filed on April 18, fell within the 15-day ex

tension period, i t was not accompan ied by amotion fo r extens ion of ti me. Accordingly, the purported appeal is dismissed for wan t of jurisdiction. 1
Don H. Reavis Justice Do not publish.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1361 

CA 11-02326 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

DR. JOHN CHONG-HWAN WEE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

NATIONAL GRID, JOHN J. WEISBECK, 

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, 

ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

 

JOHN CHONG-HWAN WEE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE. 

HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP, ROCHESTER (JENNIFER CASTALDO OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Genesee County (Eric

R. Adams, A.J.), entered September 16, 2011. The order denied

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Empire Ins. Co. v Food City, 167 AD2d 983, 984). 

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3983 Filed: 09/24/19 Entered: 09/24/19 10:25:30 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3983 Filed: 09/24/19 Entered: 09/24/19 10:25:30 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3983 Filed: 09/24/19 Entered: 09/24/19 10:25:30 Page 3 of

3
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

KING, MCCONNELL, and FOIL, 

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Robert T. DOYLE

Master-at-Arms Seaman (E-3), 

U.S. Navy

Appellant

No. 201900051

Decided: 11 December 2019.

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary.

Military Judge: Commander Hayes Larson, U.S. Navy. Sentence adjudged 23 October 2018 by a special court-martial convened at Naval 

Station Norfolk, Virginia, consisting of a military judge sitting alone.

Sentence approved by the convening authority: reduction to E-1, confinement for 110 days, and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: Captain Scott F. Hallauer, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 
United States v. Doyle, NMCCA No. 201900051

2

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866. 

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEITH W. CANDLER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

HAMMONS, Correctional Officer,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-16632

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01969-JAMCKD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 13, 2014** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Keith W. Candler, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

FILED

AUG 22 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
indifference to his serious medical needs.1

 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). 

We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside

Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Summary judgment was proper because Candler failed to raise a genuine

dispute of material fact as to whether Hammons was deliberately indifferent to his

asthma and breathing problems. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)

(a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she “knows of and

disregards an excessive risk to inmate health”); see also Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of

Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1084 (9th Cir. 2013) (defendants “did not act with

deliberate indifference toward [the prisoner] as they reasonably relied on the

expertise of the prison’s medical staff”); Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (if the harm is an

isolated exception to the prisoner’s overall treatment, it ordinarily militates against

a finding of deliberate indifference).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Candler’s motion

for appointment of counsel because Candler failed to demonstrate exceptional

1

 Candler filed his complaint and appeal under the name “Keith Candler.”

However, he is imprisoned under the name “Keith Chandler.” Candler’s prison

medical records and many of the documents filed in the district court, including the

relevant district court orders, refer to Appellant as “Keith Chandler.”

2 13-16632
circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting

forth standard of review and requirement of “exceptional circumstances” for

appointment of counsel). 

AFFIRMED.

3 13-16632