alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CORE/3505308.0002/141813218.1 

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

27

28

Carrie M. Francis (020453)

Stefan M. Palys (024752) 

Michael Vincent (029864)

STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584 

Tel: (602) 279-1600 

Fax: (602) 240-6925 

Email: carrie.francis@stinson.com

 stefan.palys@stinson.com

 michael.vincent@stinson.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jeremy Thacker, No. 2:18-cv-00063-PHX-DJH

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 

ERRATA 

Plaintiff,

v.

GPS Insight, LLC; Robert J. Donat, 

Individually and as Trustee of The 

Robert Donat Living Trust Dated April 

19, 2017; 

Defendants.

Defendants hereby notify the Court that they erroneously filed Doc. 77 in this 

matter. Defendants intended with Doc. 77 to file a Notice of Service of Supplemental 

Disclosure Statement for their Seventh Supplemental Disclosure Statement, but 

inadvertently filed the incorrect document from an unrelated matter. 

Along with this Notice of Errata, Defendants will be filing today the correct 

Notice of Service of Supplemental Disclosure Statement. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of August, 2018. 

STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP 

By: /s/ Michael Vincent 

Carrie M. Francis

Stefan M. Palys 

Michael Vincent 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DJH Document 78 Filed 08/09/18 Page 1 of 3
2 

CORE/3505308.0002/141813218.1 

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

27

28

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584 

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DJH Document 78 Filed 08/09/18 Page 2 of 3
3 

CORE/3505308.0002/141813218.1 

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

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on August 9, 2018, I caused the foregoing document to be 

filed electronically with the Clerk of Court through ECF; and that ECF will send an enotice of the electronic filing to: 

Kraig J. Marton 

Jeffrey A. Silence 

Jaburg & Wilk, P.C. 

3200 N. Central Avenue, 20th Fl 

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

kjm@jaburgwilk.com 

jxs@jaburgwilk.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Timothy B. O’Connor 

Schneider & Onofry, PC 

365 East Coronado Road 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004 

toconnor@soarizonalaw.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Donat 

/s/ C. Roundtree 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DJH Document 78 Filed 08/09/18 Page 3 of 3
---

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Online Innovation, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Chad D. Lee,
Principal Executive 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:  September 1, 2005

//s// Chad D. LeeChad D. Lee, President,
Director,Principal Executive Officer

---
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Clements and Senior Judge Annunziata 

PEARLINE M. BARLOW 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2418-07-1 PER CURIAM 

FEBRUARY 12, 2008 

FARM FRESH SUPERMARKET #44205 

 AND SUPERVALU, INC. 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Leon R. Sarfan; Sarfan & Nachman, L.L.C., on brief), for appellant. 

 (Steven H. Theisen; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, on brief), for 

appellees. 

 Pearline M. Barlow appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission 

finding that she failed to prove she sustained an injury by accident arising out of her employment 

on February 7, 2006. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that 

this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in 

its final opinion. See Barlow v. Farm Fresh Supermarket #44205, VWC File No. 227-37-29 

(Sept. 4, 2007). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-50501

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JERRY WAYNE SALLAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western Division of Texas

(A-96-CR-9)

October 20, 1997

Before WISDOM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jerry Wayne Sallas pleaded guilty t o the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon in

violation of

18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1). The district court sentenced him to 96 months imprisonment,

three years of supervised release, a $50,000 special assessment, and a $5,000 fine. Sallas appeals.

First, Sallas maintains that the distr i ct court erred in denying him a three-level decrease in

sentencing level for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Our review of this decision

by the district court is highly deferential because the court’s determination requires an assessment of2 United States v. Bermea

, 30 F.3 d 1539, 1577 (5th Ci r.1994); U nited States v.

Rodriguez , 942 F.2d 899, 902-3 (5th Cir. 1991).

3 Koon v. United States , 116 S.Ct. 2035, 2045 (1996).

4 U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(e); United States v. Ashburn

, 38 F.3d 803, 808-10 (5th Cir. 1994)

(en banc).

2 credibility. 2 After reviewing the evidence presented to the district court at sentencing, we conclude

that the district court did not err. Although Sallas admitted possessing two firearms, he denied

owning four additional guns that were seized. Furthermore, Sallas wrote letters and made several

statements to family members indicating that Debra Sallas, his wife, was responsible for his problems.

He even threatened to kill her. This conduct shows that Sallas has not accepted responsibility for his

actions.

Sallas also argues that the distric t court erred by departing upward from the sentencing

guidelines under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(e). We review the district court’s decision to grant an upward

departure for abuse of

discretion. 3 Because there is ample evidence to show that Sallas’s Criminal

History Category underrepresents the seriousness of his previous criminal conduct and the likelihood

that he will commit future crimes, 4 we find that the district court did not err by granting an upward

departure.

The judgment is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit      32.1**

|   | 1. | The                Report fully complies with 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. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                         |                                                                                                                         |                         |
|------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|
| August              13, 2008 |                                                                                                                              | /s/              Jonny White |
|                         | Jonny                WhitePresident,                Chief Executive                Officer and Chief Financial Officer  |

----
DISTRICT JUDGE'S CIVIL MINUTES 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – PHOENIX 

U.S. District Judge: David G. Campbell 

Case Number: CV-18-00063-PHX-DGC

Date: June 20, 2019 

Thacker v. GPS Insight LLC et al

APPEARANCES: Plaintiff(s) Counsel Defendant(s) Counsel 

Joshua William Carden Stefan Mark Palys 

Timothy Burke O'Connor 

TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY DISPUTE HEARING: 

Lengthy discussion is held, and the Court rules as follows: 

Text messages or imessages - The messages that Plaintiff believes have not been produced (between 

Donat and Lisson) need not be resolved to decide summary judgment. The Court will address this issue, 

if necessary, after it rules on summary judgment. Key questions will be whether Defendants’ have made 

a correct determination that undisclosed messages are not relevant for purposes of MIDP disclosure, and 

whether Plaintiff served requests for production of the messages within the time and number limits of 

the Rule 16 Scheduling Order. 

Tax returns and issues related to net worth – At this point, there is no need to decide whether additional 

deposition questions need to be answered and whether redacted personal tax returns need to be disclosed 

in a more complete form. That information may be relevant during the damages phase of trial, but will 

not affect the ruling on summary judgment. The Court will address these issues, if necessary, after it 

rules on summary judgment. Defendant shall produce corporate tax returns to Plaintiff, as ordered by 

Judge Humetewa, by June 24, 2019. 

Sales policy and any related spoliation claim - The Court will address this issue, if necessary, after ruling 

on summary judgment. By June 24, 2019, Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff an MIDP response signed 

by the client and attorney stating that all available versions of the sales policy have been produced. If 

the Court addresses this spoliation issue, it will apply Rule 37(e) as revised on December 1, 2015. 

Spread sheets on commissions - The Court will address this issue, if necessary, after it rules on summary 

judgment. 

Rule 30(b)(6) depositions – For reasons explained in detail on the record, the Court finds that this issue 

was not raised by Plaintiff in a timely manner, and will not address it. 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DGC Document 147 Filed 06/20/19 Page 1 of 2
CV-18-00063-PHX-DGC June 20, 2019 

Thacker v. GPS Insight LLC et al Page 2 of 2

The Court will address Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Serve Subpoena on Glassdoor, Inc. (Doc. 145) 

after it rules on summary judgment, if necessary. Because this issue can be resolved through discussion 

with the parties, Plaintiff need not file a response. 

Deputy Clerk: Christine Boucher 

Court Reporter: Patricia Lyons Start: 2:33 p.m. 

Stop: 3:39 p.m. 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DGC Document 147 Filed 06/20/19 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

        SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

      Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350
of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, in his capacity as an
officer of I.C. Isaacs & Company, Inc. ("Isaacs"), that, to his knowledge,
Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Isaacs on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operation of Isaacs.

Dated:  April 29, 2005

                                     /s/ Peter J. Rizzo
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Peter J. Rizzo, Chief Executive Officer



                                     /s/ Eugene C. Wielepski
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Eugene C. Wielepski, Chief Financial Officer


                                        1
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

FILED --LODGED 

-r==a::.:R_:;;:EC:::.=E~/VE:,!::D--=~=.:CQgOPY 

NOV 2 O 2019 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

8 · United States of America, No. CR-18-00223-TUC-RCC(DTF) 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Plaintiff, 

STIPULATION OF EXHIBITS 

v. 

Scott Daniel Warren, 

Defendant. 

Counsel stipulate the following Defense exhibits were presented to the jury for use 

during deliberation: 

201, 202, 203B, 215, 216, 217, 256, 257, 258 and 261. 

Date De'fense Counsel Signature 

Date
<PAGE>

                                                        EXHIBIT 10.19

                                                DETAIL OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE


<PAGE>

                                                     INETVERSITY INC.
                                                    A/R AGING SUMMARY
                                                AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                      CURRENT       1 - 30        31 - 60      61 - 90        > 90          TOTAL        pmts rec*
                                    ------------  ------------  ------------  -----------  -----------  -------------
<S>                                 <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>          <C>          <C>           <C>
 ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO.               31,745.95     16,142.31        402.06         0.00     5,400.00      53,690.32  $ (59,797.83)
 CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES              22,400.00     31,200.00     36,000.00         0.00         0.00      89,600.00  $(118,700.00)
 CAREER TRANSITION CENTER              2,000.00          0.00          0.00       900.00     7,414.20      10,314.20  $  (5,000.00)
 CARSON/LOMITA/TORRANCE PRV. IND           0.00          0.00      3,000.00     7,250.00    36,376.07      46,626.07           $ -
 DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION              0.00          0.00      2,999.99     2,365.99     6,249.98      11,615.96  $  (3,300.00)
 EL CAMINO COLLEGE                         0.00     10,800.00      1,875.00         0.00     3,423.23      16,098.23           $ -
 ELA ONE STOP CAREER CENTER            4,360.00          0.00          0.00         0.00     7,707.00      12,067.00  $  (4,000.00)
 ETP FUNDING                          81,693.00     33,486.75     20,964.75    67,012.50    33,729.33     236,886.33           $ -
 KPMG PEAT MARWICK                     1,600.00      4,400.00      2,082.15     3,440.92     1,600.00      13,123.07  $ (12,323.07)
 LAC- HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION       0.00          0.00          0.00         0.00    18,419.60      18,419.60           $ -
 LAC-DPSS                                  0.00          0.00          0.00         0.00    27,544.36      27,544.36           $ -
 ORANGE COUNTY SDA FISCAL                  0.00      3,902.50      5,450.00    19,150.00    11,000.00      39,502.50  $ (39,502.50)
 SOUTH BAY PRIVATE PIC                62,850.00     81,900.00     81,900.00    75,150.00   160,279.05     462,079.05  $(103,000.00)
                                    ------------  ------------  ------------  -----------  -----------  ------------
TOTAL                                206,648.95    181,831.56    154,673.95   175,269.41   319,142.82   1,037,566.69  $(345,623.40)
                                    ============  ============  ============  ===========  ===========  ============

</TABLE>



**    PAYMENTS REC SINCE 10/01/00
#### Mark D. JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 52488.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 17, 1996.

Jarrett Aiken Johnson, Assistant Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, C.J., Presiding, and BRECKENRIDGE and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Mark D. Jones appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief seeking to vacate his convictions and concurrent life sentences for one count of assault in the first degree, § 565.050, RSMo 1994, and one count of armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1994.

The order denying Mr. Jones’ Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
SIGNATURE PAGE OF PRIVATE PLACEMENT SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT
                                       FOR
                                  EILISH LEVENE

                       INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR SIGNATURE PAGE

         IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  parties  have  executed  this  Subscription
Agreement as of the day and year first written above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    NUMBER OF SHARES 60,000 x $0.125 = $ 7,500
                                                     ------   ------     ------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     X   /s/ Eilish Levene
    ----------------------------------------    --------------------------------
    Signature                                  Signature (if purchasing jointly)

       Eilish Levene
    ----------------------------------------    --------------------------------
    Name Typed or Printed                       Name Typed or Printed

       7 Ardley Road
    ----------------------------------------    --------------------------------
    Address                                     Address

    Kings Heath, Birmingham               UK
    ----------------------------------------    --------------------------------
    City, State and Zip Code                    City, State and Zip Code


    Telephone - Business                        Telephone - Business


    Telephone - Residence                       Telephone - Residence


    Facsimile - Business                        Facsimile - Business


    Facsimile - Residence                       Facsimile - Residence


    Tax ID# or Social Security                  Tax ID# or Social Security

Name in which Shares should be issued:    Eilish Levene
                                       -----------------------------------------

Dated:
         -----------------------------------

This Subscription Agreement is agreed to and accepted as of  October 28, 2000
                                                            --------------------

                            IGOHEALTHY.COM, INC.

                                    /s/ Bill Glaser
                                    ------------------
                            Name:    Bill Glaser
                            Title:   Secretary and Chief Operating Officer

                                       88
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Mark Thompson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Spark Networks plc;

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 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 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.



|                        |  | 
|----------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Mark Thompson       |  | 
|Mark Thompson           |  | 
|Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|May 10, 2007            |  |