alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 697 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 31, 2009. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3269) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide shareholders with an advisory vote on executive compensation and to prevent perverse incentives in the compensation practices of financial institutions. The first reading of 

the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 

consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 

clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature 

of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial 

Services now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All 

points of order against provisions of the bill, as amended, are 

waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening 

motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 

the Committee on Financial Services; (2) the amendment 
2 

•HRES 697 EH 

printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative Frank of 

Massachusetts or his designee, which shall be considered as 

read, shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 

shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question; 

(3) the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in 

the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative Garrett of New Jersey or his designee, which shall 

be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 

30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent 

and an opponent; and (4) one motion to recommit with or 

without instructions. 

SEC. 2. All points of order against amendments printed 

in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 

resolution are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 

10 of rule XXI. 

SEC. 3. During consideration of an amendment printed 

in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 

resolution, the Chair may postpone the question of adoption 

as though under clause 8 of rule XX. 
3 

•HRES 697 EH 

SEC. 4. In the engrossment of H.R. 3269, the Clerk is 

authorized to make technical and conforming changes to 

amendatory instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
INDEX OF EXHIBITS 

Exhibit No. Description Location in Docket 

Exhibit A Declaration of Lorri Mitchell Doc. ___-2 

 Exhibit A, Attachment 1: Public Information re: Mark Jordan Doc. ___-3 

 Exhibit A, Attachment 2: Disciplinary Hearing Officer Report Doc. ___-4 

Exhibit B Jordan v. Zych, Document 256 Doc. ___-5 

Exhibit C Jordan v. Bledsoe, Document 24 Doc. ___-6 

Exhibit D Jordan v. Bledsoe, Document 37 Doc. ___-7 

Exhibit E Jordan v. Bledsoe, Document 38 Doc. ___-8 

Exhibit F Jordan v. Matevousian, Document 36 Doc. ___-9 

Case 4:18-cv-00056-BGM Document 12-1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 1 of 1
20071-20071-00001\JXS\KMR\3179909.1

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

Jaburg & Wilk, P.C.

3200 N. Central Avenue, 20th Floor

Phoenix, AZ 85012

602.248.1000

Kraig J. Marton (003816)

kjm@jaburgwilk.com

Jeffrey A. Silence (029143)

jxs@jaburgwilk.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Thacker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeremy Thacker,

Plaintiff,

v.

GPS Insight, LLC; Robert Donat, 

individually,,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:18-cv-00063-DJH

NOTICE OF SERVICE 

(Assigned to Honorable Diana J. 

Humetewa)

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff served Subpoenas to Testify at a

Deposition in a Civil Action and for Production of Documents through counsel upon the 

following: 

1. Tyler Mortensen.

2. Carrie Race.

3. Elliot Batcheller.

4. Jason Walker. 

DATED this 19th day of July, 2018.

Jaburg & Wilk, P.C.

s/ Jeffrey a. Silence 

Kraig J. Marton

Jeffrey A. Silence

3200 N. Central Avenue, 20th Floor

Phoenix, AZ 85012

Attorneys for Plaintiff Thacker
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

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on 19th day of July, 2018, I electronically transmitted this 

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing, and for 

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

Carrie M. Francis

Stefan M. Palys

Michael A. Vincent

Stinson Leonard Street, LLP

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584

Carrie.francis@stinson.com

Stefan.palys@stinson.com

Michael.vincent@stinson.com

Attorneys for Defendants GPS Insight, LLC

Timothy B. O’Connor

Schneider & Onofry, PC

365 East Coronado Road

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

toconnor@soarizonalaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Donat 

s/ Kim Rogers
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50368 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VICTORIANO MURILLO-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:02-CR-87-ALL

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed to represent Victoriano Murillo-Lopez on direct appeal has filed a motion for leave to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Murillo-Lopez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following registration statements of RadioOne, Inc. of our report dated June 11, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statementsand schedule of Radio One, Inc., Radio One, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting of Radio One, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2006.**Registration Statements on Form S-3**   **File Number** **Date Filed**333-58436 April 6, 2001333-81622 January 29, 2002333-127166 August 8, 2005**Registration Statement on Form S-4**   **File Number** **Date Filed**333-65278 July 17, 2001333-127258 August 5, 2005**Registration Statements on Form S-8**     **Name** **File Number** **Date Filed**1999 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan 333-78123 May 10, 19991999 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan 333-42342 July 27, 20001999 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan 333-62718 June 11, 20011999 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan 333-100711 October 24, 2002Amended and Restated 1999 Stock Option andRestricted Stock Plan 333-116805 June 24, 2004Amended and Restated Employment AgreementBetween Radio One, Inc. and Scott R. Roysterdated October 18, 2000 and Amended and RestatedEmployment Agreement Between Radio One, Inc.and Linda J. Eckard Vilardo dated October 31,2000 333-121726 December 29, 2004/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
**Exhibit
      24.2**




**CERTIFIED
      RESOLUTIONS**





Certified
      to be a true and correct copy of the resolutions adopted by the Board of
      Directors of PMA Capital Corporation at a meeting held on February 22, 2007,
      a
      quorum being present, and such resolutions are still in full
      force and effect as of this date of certification, not having been amended,
      modified or rescinded since the date
      of
      their adoption.





RESOLVED,
      that the Officers of the Company, and each of them, are hereby authorized to
      sign the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
      2006, and any amendments thereto, (the "Form 10-K") in the name and on behalf
      of
      the Company and as attorneys for each of its Directors and
      Officers.





RESOLVED,
      that each Officer and Director of the Company who may be required to execute
      (whether on behalf of the Company or as an Officer or Director thereof) the
      Form
      10-K, is hereby authorized to execute and deliver a power of attorney appointing
      such person or persons named therein as true and lawful attorneys and agents
      to
      execute in the name, place and stead (in any such capacity) of any such Officer
      or Director the Form 10-K and to file any such power of attorney together with
      the Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the
      Compa ny,
      this
      13th day of March, 2007.








/s/
      Robert L. Pratter __________


Robert
      L.
      Pratter


Secretary


PMA
      Capital Corporation








(SEAL)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6520

ANTHONY IKEZAU ODIANA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CAROLYN V. RICKARDS, Warden; BRIAN SMITH, Case

Manager,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District

Judge. (CA-96-112)

Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 4, 1996

Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Ikezau Odiana, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his Bivens* complaint. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Odiana v.

Rickards, No. CA-96-112 (E.D. Va. Mar. 13, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10.26



March 30, 2004



Mr. John D. Grant

Grant Brothers Sales Limited

1850 Gage Court

Mississauga, Ontario L5S 1S1

Canada



Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested



Dear
John:



It is with deep regret that we must give notice of termination of our
agreement.



Pursuant to paragraph 9 of the Sales Representative Agreement
between Mirenco, Inc. and Grant Brothers Sales Limited, executed the 1stday of May, 2003, Mirenco, Inc. hereby
gives 30 days notice of cancellation of this agreement effective April 30, 2004.



John, I hope we can work together in the future on a more productive basis for both of us.



|                       
|-----------------------
|Sincerely,             
|                       
|/s/ Richard A. Musal   
|Richard A. Musal       
|Chief Operating Officer



CC:
Dwayne Fosseen

Don Lutz

Greg Page
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 111 (Friday, June 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29128-29129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14338]



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

[[Page 29129]]


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[ES-020-4210-01; FL-ES-041063]


Public Land Order No. 7148; Revocation of Executive Order Dated 
February 1, 1886; Florida; Correction

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, DOI.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects Public Land Order No. 7148, 60 FR 36736, 
published July 18, 1995, as FR Doc. 95-17512.
    On page 36736, column 2, under T. 27 S., R., 15 E., which reads 
``sec 1'' is hereby corrected to read ``sec. 6''.

    Dated: May 29, 1996.
Bruce E. Dawson,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 96-14338 Filed 6-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P-M
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-09-157-CR

TORREY CASWELL APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Torrey Caswell waived a jury and entered an open plea of guilt

to one charge of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. He appeals his

conviction and sentence of seven years’ confinement.

2 We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to

withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel

avers that, in his professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief

1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2... The judgment includes a deadly weapon finding.
and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Appellant declined

to file a pro se brief, and the State declined to file a brief.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw

on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of

Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the

record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991);

Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no

pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree

with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find

nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v.

2
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v.

State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: November 19, 2009

3
#### Quincye Allou SIMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.D. BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-6527.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 1, 2003.

Decided Aug. 11, 2003.

*240David Bernard Hargett, Hargett & Watson, P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Quincye Allou Simmons seeks to appeal the district court’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. *See 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee, 252 F.Sd*676, 683 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Simmons 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.*
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
AFC Enterprises, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-56444, 333-81404, 333-90706, and 333-98867) on Form S-8 of AFC
Enterprises, Inc. of our report dated March 29, 2004, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of AFC Enterprises, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 28, 2003 and December 29, 2002, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in shareholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 28, 2003, which report
appears in the December 28, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K of
AFC Enterprises, Inc.

Our report dated March 29, 2004 contains explanatory paragraphs that state that
the Company:

         - Has not presented the selected quarterly financial data specified by
           Item 302(a) of Regulation S-K, that the Securities and Exchange
           Commission requires as supplementary information to the basic
           financial statements.

         - Effective December 31, 2001, the Company adopted the provisions of
           Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and
           Other Intangible Assets."

/s/ KPMG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 29, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.04



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports included in this Form 10-K, into ATMI Inc.'s previously filed
Registration Statement File Nos. 33-77060, 33-93048, 333-49561, 333-49561, 333-
56349, 333-55827, 333-82089 and 333-94641. We also consent to the application of
our reports to the schedule labeled "Valuation and Qualifying Accounts" as of
the dates and period covered by our reports.



Rath, Anders, Dr. Wanner & Partner
Munich, Germany

March 28, 2000



/s/ Kabisch
Dipl. -Kfm. Kabisch
Vereidigter Buchprufer



/s/ Metzler
Dipl. -Kfm. Metzler
Wirtschaftsprufer
H. Res. 627 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 14, 2009. 

Whereas the members of the Army National Guard and Air 

National Guard of the State of Washington reside 

throughout the State and come from various communities, backgrounds, and professions; 

Whereas units and members of the Washington National 

Guard have been deployed, and are continuously being 

deployed, in support of United States military operations 

at home and overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan, and dozens 

of other countries; 

Whereas one such unit, the 81st Brigade Combat Team 

(Heavy) of the Washington Army National Guard, is 

composed of approximately 2,478 citizen-soldiers from 

throughout the State of Washington, 843 soldiers from 

the California Army National Guard, 80 soldiers from 

the Texas Army National Guard, 38 soldiers from the Indiana Army National Guard, 23 soldiers from the Arkansas Army National Guard, 20 soldiers from the United 

States Army Reserve, 13 soldiers from the Montana 

Army National Guard, 2 soldiers from the Kentucky 

Army National Guard, 2 soldiers from the Maryland 

Army National Guard, and 1 soldier from each of the 

Alabama Army National Guard, New Mexico Army National Guard, Virgin Island Army National Guard, Wis-
2 

•HRES 627 EH 

consin Army National Guard, Hawaii Army National 

Guard, New York Army National Guard, Utah Army National Guard, Minnesota Army National Guard, Massachusetts Army National Guard, Illinois Army National 

Guard, and Michigan Army National Guard; 

Whereas the 81st Brigade Combat Team was placed on Federal active duty for a second overseas mobilization on August 18, 2008, and deployed to Iraq in October 2008; 

Whereas, during the deployment of the 81st Brigade Combat 

Team in Iraq, the brigade was primarily engaged in convoy security, force protection, provincial reconstruction, 

and base operations missions; and 

Whereas the 81st Brigade Combat Team returned to the 

United States and demobilized in August 2009, upon 

completion of one year of service in support of military 

operations in Iraq: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) expresses its gratitude to the members of the 

Army National Guard and Air National Guard of the 

State of Washington and their families for their service 

and sacrifice on behalf of the United States; 

(2) commends the members of the 81st Brigade 

Combat Team (Heavy) from the Washington Army National Guard, the Army Reserve, and the other State 

National Guards specified in the preamble on the completion of their most-recent deployment in Iraq; and 

(3) recognizes the achievements of the members of 

the 81st Brigade Combat Team, and all other formerly 
3 

•HRES 627 EH 

and presently deployed Washington Army and Air National Guard units and members, for their exemplary 

service. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### Alfred WOODS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56295.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 5, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 11, 1990.

Application to Transfer Denied Feb. 13, 1990.

David C. Hemingway, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Alfred Woods, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant failed to file his Rule 24.035 motion within ninety days of his delivery to the department of corrections. Rule 24.035(b). The motion court dismissed movant’s motion as untimely. *Id.*The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(j). *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 696 [2] (Mo. banc 1989). An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).