alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-15 Filed 08/09/22 Page 1 of 4
Confidential - Pursuant to Protective Order

Golkow Litigation Services Page 1

 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 2 PENSACOLA DIVISION

 3

 IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS ) Case No.

 4 EARPLUG PRODUCTS ) 3:19md2885

 LIABILITY LITIGATION )

 5 _____________________ ) Judge M. Casey

 ) Rodgers

 6 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES ) Magistrate Judge

 TO ALL CASES ) Gary R. Jones

 7

 8 THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 2020

 9 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

 10 – – –

 11 Videotaped deposition of D. Garrad

 12 Warren, III, held at the offices of KIRKLAND

 13 & ELLIS LLP, 300 North LaSalle, Chicago,

 14 Illinois, commencing at 9:02 a.m., on the

 15 above date, before Carrie A. Campbell,

 16 Registered Diplomate Reporter, Certified

 17 Realtime Reporter, Illinois, California &

 18 Texas Certified Shorthand Reporter, Missouri

 19 & Kansas Certified Court Reporter.

 20 – – –

 21

 GOLKOW LITIGATION SERVICES

 22 877.370.3377 ph | 917.591.5672 fax

 deps@golkow.com

 23

 24

 25

Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-15 Filed 08/09/22 Page 2 of 4
Confidential - Pursuant to Protective Order

Golkow Litigation Services Page 213

 1 lunch, we were looking at Exhibit 28 --

 2 A. Yes.

 3 Q. -- how to fold the flanges

 4 back?

 5 A. Right.

 6 Q. And the date on that was

 7 July 10, 2000, right?

 8 A. Yes, sir.

 9 (Warren Exhibit 29 marked for

 10 identification.)

 11 QUESTIONS BY MR. AYLSTOCK:

 12 Q. All right. If we look at the

 13 next exhibit, 29.

 14 And this is a memo from

 15 Elliott -- well, from Ron Kieper to Elliott

 16 Berger dated August 17, 2000.

 17 Do you see that?

 18 A. I do.

 19 Q. And it's talking about these

 20 two tests that are reflected in the flange

 21 report, Exhibit 28, correct? The 213015 and

 22 213017, right?

 23 A. Yes. Yes.

 24 Q. And what it says is, "The

 25 initial test, 213015, was stopped after eight

Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-15 Filed 08/09/22 Page 3 of 4
Confidential - Pursuant to Protective Order

Golkow Litigation Services Page 214

 1 subjects because the results were variable

 2 and the NRR was quite low, 11."

 3 Do you see that?

 4 A. I do.

 5 Q. In your experience in passive

 6 hearing protection, that would be a quite low

 7 NRR, correct?

 8 A. 11?

 9 Q. Yes.

 10 A. It would be lower, yes.

 11 Q. That would make it --

 12 A. The lower end of the scale.

 13 Q. That would make it harder to

 14 sell?

 15 A. Absolutely.

 16 Q. If not impossible to sell?

 17 A. Absolutely.

 18 Q. Okay. "At all tested

 19 frequencies, test 213017 means are higher,

 20 and SDs are lower than those of 213015, and

 21 the NRR is 22."

 22 Do you see that?

 23 A. I do.

 24 Q. So at any point in time did you

 25 ever see any packaging or instructions or

Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-15 Filed 08/09/22 Page 4 of 4
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JAMES ELLARD,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5520-MCR-EMT

FLORIDA COMMISSION ON

OFFENDER REVIEW,

Respondent.

_________________________/

O R D E R

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on March 

26, 2021. ECF No. 15. The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all 

timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 

15, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

Case 3:20-cv-05520-MCR-EMT Document 19 Filed 07/29/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5520-MCR-EMT

2. The amended habeas petition, ECF No. 7, is DENIED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this 

Order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of June 2021.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05520-MCR-EMT Document 19 Filed 07/29/21 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

Case No. 4:97cr62-RH/GRJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:97cr62-RH/GRJ

CARLON BURNICE CRAWFORD,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE § 2255 MOTION

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, ECF No. 135. No objections have been filed. Upon 

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s 

opinion. The defendant’s motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED 

without prejudice as premature. The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on July 20, 2013.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Robert J. Krakauer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC;

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 this 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 this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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)) for the registrant and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us 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.

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 performing the equivalent functions):

(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.

Date: May 14, 2007



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/ Robert J. Krakauer               
|Robert J. Krakauer                   
|President and Chief Financial Officer
#### § 400.407 Restricted access.

The Manager, other officer, or employee of FCIC or an authorized person may have access to the SSNs and EINs obtained pursuant to this subpart, only for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a system of records necessary for the effective administration of the Act.

[62 FR 28609, May 27, 1997]
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

JOSE MANUEL PINZON, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0720 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CR201000868

The Honorable Tina R. Ainley, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Yavapai County Attorney’s Office, Prescott

By Dana E. Owens

Counsel for Respondent

Jose Manuel Pinzon, Globe

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, Judge Diane M. Johnsen, and 

Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 10-12-2017
STATE v. PINZON

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Jose Manuel Pinzon seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s second 

successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction 

relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying 

the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1

(App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on 

review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the 

petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse 

of discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO




18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350




AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO





SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Report of Silver Pearl Enterprises, Inc. on Form 10-Q/A for
the period from January 27, 2005 (Inception) through June 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-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 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 operation of the Company.





/s/
      DENISE D. SMITH
              Denise
      D. Smith
              Sole
      Member of the Board of Directors
              Dated:
      October 8, 2008
              
              
              /s/
      DENISE D. SMITH
              Denise
      D. Smith
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              Dated:
      October 8, 2008
              
              
              /s/
      DENISE D. SMITH
              Denise
      D. Smith
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              Dated:
      October 8, 2008
              
              
              /s/
      DENISE D. SMITH
              Denise
      D. Smith
              Principal
      Accounting Officer
              Dated:
      October 8, 2008




This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of




Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Editorial Note on Part 3401
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3401 appear at 76 FR 4806, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3401.3 Eligibility requirements. ( a ) Except where otherwise prohibited by law, any land-grant college and university, State agricultural experiment station, and college, university, and Federal laboratory having a demonstrable capacity in rangeland research, as determined by the Secretary, shall be eligible to apply for and to receive a project grant under this part, provided that the applicant qualifies as a responsible grantee under the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) To qualify as responsible, an applicant must meet the following standards as they relate to a particular project: ( 1 ) Have adequate financial resources for performance, the necessary experience, organizational and technical qualifications, and facilities, or a firm commitment, arrangement, or ability to obtain such (including proposed subagreements);
( 2 ) Be able to comply with the proposed or required completion schedule for the project;
( 3 ) Have a satisfactory record of integrity, judgment, and performance, including, in particular, any prior performance under grants and contracts from the Federal government;
( 4 ) Have an adequate financial management system and audit procedure which provides efficient and effective accountability and control of all property, funds, and other assets; and
( 5 ) Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive a research project grant under applicable laws and regulations.
( c ) Any applicant who is determined to be not responsible will be notified in writing of such findings and the basis therefor.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DUSTEN A. MAHON

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-171-TKW/MJF

TIM BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

/

O R D E R

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Reports and 

Recommendations (Docs. 56, 57, 58) and Plaintiff’s objections (Docs. 60, 61). The 

Court reviewed the issues raised in the objections de novo as required by 28 U.S.C. 

§636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees 

with the magistrate judge’s recommended dispositions of Defendants’ motions to 

dismiss. 

The Court also agrees with the magistrate judge’s sua sponte determination

that the claims against Defendant Raley should be dismissed for lack of service

because it has been nearly a year since the complaint was filed and Plaintiff has yet 

to serve Defendant Raley. The Report and Recommendation provided Plaintiff the 

required notice that the claims against Defendant Raley were due to be dismissed for 

lack of service, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), and Plaintiff did not object to that portion 
2

of the Report and Recommendation or otherwise show good cause for his failure to 

serve Defendant Raley.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Reports and Recommendations are adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendant Howell’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 45) is

a. GRANTED with respect to any actions by Howell between 

January 1 and July 30, 2017, to the extent Howell failed to follow 

“outside medical recommendations,” and to the extent that 

Howell was one of the unnamed nurses responsible for various 

acts and omissions alleged in the complaint; and

b. DENIED to the extent that Plaintiff alleges that Howell acted 

with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs at 

various times between July 31 and October 26, 2017.

3. Defendant Walsingham’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 38) is GRANTED, 

and the claims against her in Count III of the complaint are 

DISMISSED with prejudice.

4. Defendant Brown’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 25) is GRANTED, and 

the claims against him in Count IV of the complaint are DISMISSED 

with prejudice. 
3

5. The claims against Defendant Raley in Count I of the complaint are 

DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

6. This case is recommitted to the magistrate judge for further proceedings 

on the remaining claims.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of June, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Financial Data Schedule For Adelphia Communications Corp. for the twelve
months ended March 31, 1998
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000796486
<NAME> ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         276,895
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,551<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,613,741<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,304,671
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      2,909,745
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           309
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,316,174)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,304,671
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               528,442
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  408,060
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             247,107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (168,160)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,606)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (162,554)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (11,325)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (173,879)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (6.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (6.45)
<FN>
<F1>Receivables netted with Allowance
<F2>PP&e netted with Depreciation
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
** Exhibit 32.1**

Certification of Principal Executive OfficerPursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/Afor the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) of Federal ServicesAcquisition Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joel R. Jacks, Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrant.

Date: September 29,2006
|        | By:        | /s/    Joel  R. Jacks |
|--------|------------|-------------------------------------------|
|   | ** ** | **Joel R.  Jacks**                        |
|   | ** ** | **Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer** |
|   | ** ** | **(Principal  Executive Officer)**        |

 

----
----

Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

            In connection with the Quarterly Report of Amalgamated Pictures Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Avery Pack, President, 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: August 18, 2013

| /s/ Avery Pack                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| Avery Pack, President and          Chief Executive Officer          (Principal Executive Officer) and          Acting Chief Financial Officer          (Principal Financial Officer and          Principal Accounting Officer) |
§ 400.209 Electronic transmission and receiving system. Any Contractor under the Contract is required to: ( a ) Adopt a plan for the purpose of transmitting and receiving electronically, information to and from the Corporation concerning the original executed crop insurance documents;
( b ) Maintain an electronic system which must be tested and approved by the Corporation;
( c ) Maintain Corporation approval of the electronic system as a condition to the electronic transmission and reception of data by the Contractor;
( d ) Utilize the Corporation approved automated data processing and electronic data transmission capabilities to process crop insurance documents as required herein; and
( e ) Establish and maintain the electronic equipment and computer software program capability to: ( 1 ) Receive and store actuarial data electronically via telecommunications utilizing 3780 protocol and utilizing a BELL 208B or compatible modem at 4800 bits per second (bps);
( 2 ) Enter and store information from original crop insurance documents into electronic format;
( 3 ) Verify electronically stored information recorded from crop insurance documents with electronically stored actuarial information;
( 4 ) Compute and print the data elements in the Summary of Protection;
( 5 ) Transmit crop insurance data electronically, via 3780 protocol utilizing a BELL 208B or compatible modem at 4800 bps;
( 6 ) Receive electronic acknowledgements, error messages, and other data via 3780 protocol utilizing a BELL 208B or compatible modem at 4800 bps, and relate error messages to original crop insurance documents; and
( 7 ) Store backup data and physical documents.
(The Corporation may approve other compatible specifications if accepted by the Corporation and if requested by the Contractor)
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3D (No. 033-65417), Form S-8 (No. 333-95343) and Form S-3 (No. 333-156785) of Alliance Financial Corporation of our report dated March 13, 2007 relating to the financial statements which
appears in this Form 10-K.



|                               |  | 
|------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |  | 
|Boston, Massachusetts          |  | 
|March 13, 2009                 |  |
#### § 400.453 Exhaustion of administrative remedies.

All administrative remedies contained herein or incorporated herein by reference must be exhausted before Judicial Review in the United States Courts may be sought, unless review is specifically required by statute.