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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Brandon Quinn Harris, Sr.,

Defendant.

No. CR-17-01112-02-PHX-DGC

DETENTION ORDER

On July 30, 2021, Defendant appeared before this Court on a petition for revocation 

of probation. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The Court considered the 

petition and file in determining whether Defendant should be released on conditions set by 

the Court.

The Court finds that Defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on 

probation, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to revoke 

his probation, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he is not likely 

to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released pursuant to Rule 46(d), 

and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 U.S.C. § 3143.

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

Dated this 30th day of July, 2021.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:17-cr-01112-DGC Document 80 Filed 07/30/21 Page 1 of 1
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report of Fortified Holdings
Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly Repot), I, Dennis Mee, Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted), that:

|1. | The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company at the end of the periods covered by the
      Quarterly Report.

|Date: June 14, 2007 |     |                            
|------------------- | --- | ---------------------------
|                    | By: | /s/ Dennis Mee             
|                    |     | Dennis Mee                 
|                    |     | Principal Executive Officer

---
Exhibit 

A 

Case 2:17-cv-04540-DGC Document 401-1 Filed 09/23/20 Page 1 of 3
1

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

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

STATE OF ARIZONA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LESLIE ALLEN MERRITT, JR.,

Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR2015-144211-001

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL 

ARGUMENT HELD ON JUNE 22, 

2020 BEFORE COMMISSIONER 

WILLIAM WINGARD

Case 2:17-cv-04540-DGC Document 401-1 Filed 09/23/20 Page 2 of 3
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

Appearances:

On behalf of the State of Arizona: Barbara Marshall, Esq.

Deputy County Attorney

On behalf of Defendant Leslie Jason Lamm, Esq.

Allen Merritt, Jr.

EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS

10:38:06 A.M.

(Ms. Marshall)

We have heard concerns from civil counsel that whatever this Court rules 

would be used in the civil case, so as far as I know, there is not a stipulation 

that would preclude this Court’s ruling on the motion for clearance coming in 

in the civil case. If that has occurred, that is news to me. And we do have a 

concern that this motion was filed at a critical time in the civil case, which is 

ongoing and goes to the exact issues raised in the clearance motion. 

# # #

Case 2:17-cv-04540-DGC Document 401-1 Filed 09/23/20 Page 3 of 3
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 Quarterly Report of Signet International Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ernest W. Letiziano, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




(2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






Date: May 16, 2011
By: /s/ Ernest W. Letiziano

Ernest W. Letiziano

Chief Executive Officer

and Chief Financial Officer











A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Signet International Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Signet International Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
---

Exhibit 32.2

|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO                     
|----------------------------------------------
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

The undersigned, Ron Lizée, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1) the annual report on Form 10-KSB /A of Acrongenomics, Inc. for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Melt
Inc.

Dated September 5, 2008.

|/s/ Ron Lizée                                                  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Ron Lizée                                                      | 
|Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director                | 
|(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) | 
|                                                               | 

---
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-46108, 333-57896, 333-87164, 333-106189, 333-114003, 333-124467 and 333-133543) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1998 Stock Plan and 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of SirenzaMicrodevices, Inc., and in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-106706, 333-112376, and 333-112382) of Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. of our reports dated March 14, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of SirenzaMicrodevices, Inc., Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Sirenza Microdevices, Inc., includedin this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/    ERNST& YOUNG LLP 

Denver, Colorado 

March 14,2007
**Exhibit 32.2**

**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 theQuarterly Report of Jamba, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 6, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Karen L. Luey, Senior VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m);and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: November 12, 2009 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
Exhibit 99.2 A-2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Devine Entertainment
Corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007
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 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.

Date: May 14, 2007

                                               /s/ Richard Mozer
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Name:  Richard Mozer
                                               Title: Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF

VYYO INC.



I, Arik Levi, Chief Financial Officer of Vyyo Inc., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Vyyo
Inc. (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 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) [paragraph reserved pursuant to SEC Release 33-8238];



(c) 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



(d) 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 officers 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 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.



|                        |  |                                   
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------
|Date: February 10, 2005 |  | /s/    ARIK LEVI                  
|                        |  | Arik Levi, Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders
                                                                              Ending
Class                   Interest             Principal      Losses           Balance
<S>                     <C>                  <C>            <C>              <C>
B1                       239,130.00          28,749.65         0.00          3,582,250.35
B2                        99,665.12          11,982.33         0.00          1,493,017.66
B3                        59,732.81           7,181.45         0.00            894,818.56
B4                        39,866.04           4,792.94         0.00            597,207.06
B5                        26,621.50           3,200.59         0.00            398,799.40
B6                        32,801.43           2,024.02     1,970.04            497,669.91
IA1                    3,770,468.75       9,897,755.74         0.00         52,833,244.27
1A2                    2,353,714.00       9,498,177.43         0.00         31,672,822.56
IA3                    1,312,944.16               0.00         0.00         19,755,900.00
IA4                    1,116,393.63               0.00         0.00         16,798,400.00
IA5                    1,264,502.69               0.00         0.00         19,027,000.00
IA6                      564,895.87               0.00         0.00          8,500,000.00
IAP                            0.00         135,646.78         0.00            898,763.97
IAR                        2,450.97             100.00         0.00                  0.00
IIA1                   1,303,030.97       2,905,899.36         0.00         17,710,100.65
IIA2                     216,428.19               0.00         0.00          3,256,600.00
IIAP                           0.00          66,987.37         0.00            147,391.41

</TABLE>
#### Robert E. DORSEY, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 54683.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 25, 1988.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 7, 1988.

Application to Transfer Denied Jan. 17, 1989.

*677Michael C. Todt, St. Louis, for movant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John Munson Morris, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

CRANDALL, Presiding Judge.

Movant, Robert E. Dorsey, appeals from the motion court’s denial, without a hearing, of his Rule 27.26 motion.1 Movant had previously pleaded guilty to one count of robbery in the first degree, one count of armed criminal action, and one count of leaving the scene of an accident. The trial court sentenced movant to imprisonment for ten years for robbery in the first degree, ten years for armed criminal action, and eight years for leaving the scene of an accident. The trial court sentenced movant to serve the two ten year sentences *concurrently*with a twenty year sentence he is presently serving and sentenced movant to serve the eight year sentence *consecutive*to the twenty year term. Movant then brought this Rule 27.26 motion alleging that the trial court erred in sentencing movant to serve his term for the third count consecutive to his terms for the first two counts and the term he is presently serving. We affirm.

> Section 558.026.1, RSMo (1986) states: “multiple sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently unless the court specifies that they shall run consecutively....”

Missouri courts have universally held Section 558.026 places the discretion whether to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences in the trial court. *State v. Garbe,*740 S.W.2d 266, 268 (Mo.App.1987). The trial court in this case specified that the eight-year sentence would run consecutively to the two ten-year sentences. The trial court acted within its discretion.

The judgment and sentence of the trial court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 27.-26(j). We affirm.

REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.

1

. Rule 27.26 was repealed, effective January 1, 1988. However, this appeal is governed by Rule 27.26 because the sentence was pronounced pri- or to January 1, 1988, and movant's Rule 27.26 motion was then pending. *See,*Rule 24.035, effective January 1, 1988.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Christophe Law Group, P.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Klodian Kokomani, Defendant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered on or about December 21, 2015, which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered on or about December 21, 2015, affirmed, with $10 costs.</p><p>Plaintiff-law firm was retained by defendant-client with respect to an immigration matter. Paragraph 8 of the governing retainer agreement between the parties provided, in relevant part, that in the event of "litigation" relating to the subject matter of the retainer agreement, the non-prevailing party shall reimburse the prevailing party for attorneys' fees. Construing the agreement in the light most favorable to defendant-client (<i>see Shaw v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.</i>, 68 NY2d 172, 177 [1986]), we agree that defendant is not obligated to reimburse plaintiff for legal fees incurred in a fee arbitration requested by defendant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 137, that was settled pursuant to an agreement whereby defendant agreed to pay the disputed fee. The Fee Dispute Resolution Program codified in Part 137 "provides for the informal and expeditious resolution of fee disputes between attorneys and clients through arbitration and mediation" (22 NYCRR 137.0). This informal dispute resolution does not constitute "litigation" as that term is used in Paragraph 8 of the retainer agreement (<i>see Matter of Covert</i>, 97 NY2d 68, 76 [2001] [if the contract terms are clear and unambiguous, these terms are to be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary and proper sense]). According to Black's Law Dictionary, "litigation" is defined as "the process of carrying on a lawsuit" (Black's Law Dictionary 1017 [10th Ed. 2014]). Likewise, "lawsuit" is defined as "any proceeding by a party or parties against another in a court of law" (<i>id</i>.; <a href="../2011/2011_50143.htm" target="_blank"><i>see also Horse-Shoe Capital v American Tower Corp.</i> 30 Misc 3d 1220</a>[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50143[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2011]). Thus, even assuming that plaintiff was the prevailing party, the Fee Dispute Resolution Program proceedings did not constitute "litigation" and therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to legal fees pursuant to the retainer agreement.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: April 21, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certificate pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of FirstBank FinancialServices, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J.Randall Dixon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Lisa J. Maxwell,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       To my knowledge, the Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|          |   | /s/ J.  Randall Dixon                         |
|---------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|          |   | J. Randall  Dixon, President and C.E.O.       |
|          |   | (Principal  Executive Officer)                |
|          |   |                                          |
|          |   |                                          |
|          |   | /s/ Lisa J.  Maxwell                          |
|          |   | Lisa J.  Maxwell, C.F.O.                      |
|          |   | (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|          |   |                                          |
|          |   |                                          |
| May  12, 2006 |   |                                          |

 

1

----
#### Terrance L. HOBBY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 40906.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 7, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 2, 1990.

Application to Transfer Denied Feb. 13, 1990.

John L. Vohs, Asst. Public Defender, S. Richard Beitling, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, P.J., and TURNAGE and ULRICH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of Rule 27.26 motion for postconviction relief.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 21.1

Significant Subsidiaries of Dynegy Inc.

As of December 31, 2007



|           |  |                                   |  |                                
|---------- |  | --------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------
|SUBSIDIARY |  |                                   |  | STATE ORCOUNTRY OFINCORPORATION
|           |  |                                  
|1.         |  | Dynegy Holdings Inc.              |  | Delaware                       
|           |  |                                  
|2.         |  | Illinova Corporation              |  | Illinois                       
|           |  |                                  
|3.         |  | Dynegy Northeast Generation, Inc. |  | Delaware                       
|           |  |                                  
|4.         |  | Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.   |  | Illinois                       
|           |  |                                  
|5.         |  | Dynegy Catlin Member              |  | Delaware                       
|           |  |                                  
|6.         |  | Dynegy Falcon Holdings Inc.       |  | Delaware                       
|           |  |                                  
|7.         |  | Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc.      |  | Texas