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 

Matthew W. Wright (014104) 

Christopher S. Welker (020060) 

WRIGHT WELKER & PAUOLE PLC 

10429 South 51st Street, Suite 285 

Phoenix, Arizona 85044 

(480) 961-0040 

mwright@wwpfirm.com

cwelker@wwpfirm.com

Attorneys for all Defendants, except John Shea and Christine Shea 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jenifer Anderson, a single woman; L.A., a 

single woman; 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Mesa Public School District, et. al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 2:18-cv-00692-DJH

Maricopa County Superior Court 

Cause No. CV2017-011087 

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL

WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Rule 41(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and by and through their 

counsel undersigned, Plaintiffs and Defendants stipulate that Plaintiffs’ Complaint and each 

and every cause of action therein may be dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear their 

own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

DATED this 27th day of March, 2019. 

WRIGHT WELKER & PAUOLE PLC 

By /s/Christopher S. Welker 

 Matthew W. Wright 

 Christopher S. Welker 

 10429 South 51st Street, Suite 285 

 Phoenix, Arizona 85044 

Attorneys for all Defendants, except John Shea 

and Christine Shea 

Case 2:18-cv-00692-DJH Document 45 Filed 03/27/19 Page 1 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 

27 

28 

MILLS + WOODS LAW, PLLC 

By /s/Sean A. Woods (with permission) 

Sean A. Woods 

Robert T. Mills 

Jordan C. Wolff 

5055 N 12th Street, Suite 101 

Phoenix, AZ 85014 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

HENDRICKS MURPHY PLLC 

By /s/Ed Hendricks, Jr. (with permission)

Ed Hendricks, Jr. 

3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 970 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

Attorneys for the Shea Defendants 

Case 2:18-cv-00692-DJH Document 45 Filed 03/27/19 Page 2 of 3
 3 

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 March 27, 2019, I electronically transmitted the foregoing 

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a 

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

Robert T. Mills 

Sean A. Woods 

Jordan Wolff 

Angelini Mills Woods & Ori Law 

5055 N. 12th Street, Suite 101 

Phoenix, AZ 85014 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Ed Hendricks, Jr. 

David W. Cowles 

Hendricks Murphy, PLLC 

3101 N. Central Avenue, Suite 970 

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

Attorneys for Defendants John Shea and Christine Shea 

/s/Debi Handrahan 

6927-1321

Case 2:18-cv-00692-DJH Document 45 Filed 03/27/19 Page 3 of 3
```

                                                       CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

         The undersigned hereby certifies that she is the duly elected and acting Assistant Treasurer of Southern California Edison
Company, as servicer (the "Servicer") under the Transition Property Servicing Agreement dated as of December 11, 1997 (the "Servicing
Agreement") between the Servicer and SCE Funding LLC (the "Note Issuer") and further that:

1.       A review of the activities of the Servicer and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement during the twelve months
              ended June 30, 2002 has been made under the supervision of the undersigned pursuant to Section 3.03 of the Servicing
              Agreement; and

2.       To the best of the undersigned's knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its material obligations
              in all material respects under the Servicing Agreement throughout the twelve months ended June 30, 2002, except for
              those material defaults in the fulfillment of material obligations listed on Annex A hereto.

         Executed this 30th day of September, 2002.

                                            SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

                                            By:    Mary C. Simpson
                                            -------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Mary C. Simpson
                                                   Assistant Treasurer

                                                                ANNEX A
                                                                  TO
                                                       CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

                                                       LIST OF SERVICER DEFAULTS

The following material defaults known to the undersigned occurred during the twelve months ended June 30, 2002.

Nature of Default                                                      Status
-----------------                                                      ------

None
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 31117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15484]



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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Dkt. C-3637]


BBDO Worldwide, Inc.; Prohibited Trade Practices, and Affirmative 
Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Consent Order.

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

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of federal law prohibiting 
unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of 
competition, this consent order prohibits, among other things, a New 
York advertising firm from misrepresenting the amount of fat, calories, 
or cholesterol in any frozen yogurt, any frozen sorbet, and most ice 
cream products. This action stems from the firm's role in developing 
certain advertisements for Haagen-Dazs frozen yogurt products.

DATES: Complaint and Order issued January 24, 1996.\1\

    \1\ Copies of the Complaint and the Decision and Order are 
available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, H-130, 6th 
Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anne Maher, FTC/S-4002, Washington, D.C. 20580. (202) 326-2987.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Friday, October 27, 1995, there was 
published in the Federal Register, 60 FR 55031, a proposed consent 
agreement with analysis In the Matter of BBDO Worldwide, Inc., for the 
purpose of soliciting public comment. Interested parties were given 
sixty (60) days in which to submit comments, suggestions or objections 
regarding the proposed form of the order.
    No comments having been received, the Commission has ordered the 
issuance of the complaint in the form contemplated by the agreement, 
made its jurisdictional findings and entered an order to cease and 
desist, as set forth in the proposed consent agreement, in disposition 
of this proceeding.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interprets or applies sec. 5, 
38 Stat. 719, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 45, 52)
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15484 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
#### Sharon ARENSON, Respondent, v. Edward ARENSON, Appellant.

No. 57164.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

April 3, 1990.

Edward Arenson, St. Louis, pro se.

Sharon Arenson, Germantown, Tenn., pro se.

DOWD, Presiding Judge.

Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 84.04.

After an approximately ten year marriage, which produced no children, wife *846filed a petition for dissolution. The decree was entered on July 6, 1989. Husband then filed this appeal. Upon appeal, both parties represent themselves pro se.

When a party represents itself pro se, the party must still satisfy all the relevant rules of procedure and this court cannot hold a pro se party to a lower standard of performance. *Snelling v. Stephenson,*747 S.W.2d 689, 690 (Mo.App.1988). One of the rules which an appellant must satisfy is Rule 84.04, concerning the contents of appellate briefs. Appellant in this case has completely failed to meet the requirements of this rule. The brief contains no discernible jurisdictional statement, statement of facts, or point relied on. Rule 84.04(a). The appeal is dismissed because of these deficiencies.

Despite procedural defects, this court may consider an appeal ex gratia to prevent manifest injustice, *Ferrara v. Wells,*728 S.W.2d 718, 719 (Mo.App.1987), but such review is not appropriate here. Appellant’s brief fails to identify wherein and why the lower court erred; it merely points out the end results with which appellant disagrees. Examination of the case would require this court to scour the record on appeal to identify possible errors then research any issue so revealed. That is the duty of the parties, not the function of an appellate court. *Draper v. Aronowitz,*695 S.W.2d 923, 924 (Mo.App.1985).

Appeal dismissed.

SIMON, C.J., and JOSEPH J. SIMEONE, Senior Judge, concur.
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Principal Financial Officer


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 Vision Acquisition III, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Berger, 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.





/s/ David BergerDavid BergerPrincipal Financial OfficerMay 11, 2011
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of Crown Equity Holdings Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") Kenneth Bosket, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), 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.





/s/ Kenneth BosketKenneth Bosket

Chief Executive Officer

Dated: March 4, 2011





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.








CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In connection with the Annual Report of Crown Equity Holdings Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report), Lowell Holden, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), 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.





/s/ Lowell HoldenLowell Holden

Chief Financial Officer

Dated: January 31, 2011




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.
WO 

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 Plaintiff Arizona Medical Billing, Inc. (“AMB”), filed suit against several 

defendants, including FSIX LLC, alleging that the defendants violated the Federal False 

Claims Act and Medicare’s mileage reimbursement policies, among other causes of action. 

(Doc. 1) Certain defendants, FSIX LLC, Cindy Funk, and Todd Funk moved for an award 

of costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in defending AMB’s repeated filings (Doc. 24), which 

the Court granted in part on January 22, 2019. (Doc. 42) The Plaintiff filed a motion for 

reconsideration (the “Motion”) on February 4, 2019. (Doc. 44) For the reasons set forth 

below, the motion is denied. 

 Reconsideration is disfavored and “appropriate only in rare circumstances.”

WildEarth Guardians v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 283 F.Supp.3d 783, 795 n.11 (D. 

Ariz. June 21, 2017); see also Bergdale v. Countrywide Bank FSB, No. CV-12-8057-PCTSMM, 2014 WL 12643162, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 23, 2014) (“[Reconsideration] motions 

should not be used for the purpose of asking a court to rethink what the court had already 

thought through-rightly or wrongly.”) A motion for reconsideration will be granted only 

Arizona Medical Billing Incorporated, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

 FSIX LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-17-04742-PHX-SPL 

ORDER 

 
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 

where the Court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear 

error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change 

in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 

1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

In its Motion, Plaintiff requests for the Court to reconsider its prior Order. (Doc. 44 

at 2) The Plaintiff does not direct the Court to any newly discovered evidence or precedent 

demonstrating an error or intervening change in controlling law. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 44) is denied. 

 Dated this 6th day of February, 2019. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan 

United States District Judge
|   | (i) |   | the      accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year      ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the      requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and |
|--------|-----|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   |   |                                 |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| By:    |   | /s/      Peter D. Thompson           |   |   |
|   |   |                                 |   |   |
|   |   | Name:      Peter D. Thompson         |   |   |
|   |   | Title:      Executive Vice President |   |   |
|   |   | and      Chief Financial Officer     |   |   |
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 31192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15720]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given that the Railroad Retirement Board will hold 
a meeting on June 26, 1996, 9:00 a.m., at the Board's meeting room on 
the 8th floor of its headquarters building, 844 North Rush Street, 
Chicago, Illinois, 60611.
    The agenda for this meeting follows:

Portion Open to the Public

(1) Annual Actuarial Report (Sec. 22 of the Railroad Retirement Act 
of 1974 and Sec. 502 of the Railroad Retirement Solvency Act of 
1983)
(2) Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Allocations
(3) Proposed Reorganization--Bureau of Information Systems
(4) Letters to Congress on H.R. 2942 and S. 1552
(5) Draft Legislation Proposed on April 4, 1996--Draft Legislation 
to Enhance Debt Collection Efforts
(6) Medicare Part B Services (Contract No. 92RRB006)
(7) Regulations, Claims Manuals, Rulings, and Procedures
(8) Status of Intermodal Services Under the Railroad Retirement and 
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Acts
(9) Regulations--Part 230 (Reduction and Non-Payment of Annuities by 
Reason of Work)
(10) Employee Service Determinations:
    A. Maryland Midland Railway, Inc.--James W. Schaeffer, Jr.
    B. Joyce Goss
(11) Labor Member Truth in Budgeting Status Report

Portion Closed to the Public

(A) Request for Change in Position Index (Bureau of Hearings and 
Appeals)
(B) Pending Board Appeals:
    (1) Anderson, Raymond
    (2) Garcia, Fedelina
    (3) Herbert, Harold
    (4) Howard, Alvira M.
    (5) McLeod, Jasper N.
    (6) Trybala, Therese A.

    The person to contact for more information is Beatrice Ezerski, 
Secretary to the Board, Phone No. 312-751-4920.

    Dated: June 14, 1996.
Beatrice Ezerski,
Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-15720 Filed 6-17-96; 11:09 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
**Exhibit 10.30** **TriPath    Imaging, Inc. 2006 Bonus Plan**     On January 26, 2006, the Compensation Committee of the    Board of Directors of TriPath Imaging, Inc. (the    “Company”) approved the terms of a bonus plan for    fiscal year 2006 (the “2006 Bonus Plan”). All    employees (other than employees who are covered by a sales    compensation or commission-based plan) are eligible to    participate in the 2006 Bonus Plan, including all of the    Company’s executive officers.     Under the 2006 Bonus Plan, the payment of bonus compensation, if    any, will be based on the achievement of objective corporate    goals. The objective corporate performance goals for each    participant will be based on the Company’s 2006 revenues,    as well as quarterly and annual earnings per share. Bonuses will    be payable in cash, options or a combination thereof.     Under the 2006 Bonus Plan, the potential payout of bonus    compensation may range from 0% to a maximum of 100% of the bonus    target. The bonus target for participants in the 2006 Bonus Plan    will be based on a percentage of base salary dependent on the    level of responsibility within the Company. The bonus target for    each of the Company’s executive officers is set forth below.        **Bonus Target**
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 30865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15356]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. PR96-10-000]


Dow Intrastate Gas Company; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval

June 12, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 31, 1996, Dow Intrastate Gas Company 
(DIGCO) filed, pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's 
regulations, a petition for rate approval requesting that the 
Commission approve as fair and equitable a maximum rate of $0.0913 per 
MMBtu, plus 0.3% in-kind fuel reimbursement, for interruptible 
transportation services performed under section 311(a)(2) of the 
Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA). DIGCO's mailing address is 21145 
Highway 1, Plaquemine, LA 70764.
    DIGCO's petition states it is an intrastate pipeline within the 
meaning of section 2(16) of the NGPA. DIGCO provides interruptible 
transportation service pursuant to Section 311(a)(2) of the NGPA 
through its facilities located in Calcasieu, Jefferson Davis, Cameron, 
Vermilion, Lafayette, St. Martin, Iberville, and West Baton Rouge 
Parishes, Louisiana. This petition is intended to establish a new 
system-wide maximum transportation rate for section 311(a)(2) service, 
and is filed pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation and Agreement of 
Settlement approved January 19, 1994, in Docket No. PR93-12-000, which 
required DIGCO to file an application on or before June 1, 1996, to 
justify its current rate or to establish a new system-wide rate. DIGCO 
proposes an effective date of June 1, 1996.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must 
file a motion to intervene in accordance with section 385.211 and 
385.214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All 
motions must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission on or before 
June 27, 1996. The petition for rate approval is on file with the 
Commission and is available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15356 Filed 6-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Case 4:18-cv-00111-RCC-PSOT Document 2 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 5
Case 4:18-cv-00111-RCC-PSOT Document 2 Filed 02/28/18 Page 2 of 5
Case 4:18-cv-00111-RCC-PSOT Document 2 Filed 02/28/18 Page 3 of 5
Case 4:18-cv-00111-RCC-PSOT Document 2 Filed 02/28/18 Page 4 of 5
Case 4:18-cv-00111-RCC-PSOT Document 2 Filed 02/28/18 Page 5 of 5
#### Nathan GILMORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 47778.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 18, 1994.

Lorry L. Kohrs, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and ULRICH and SPINDEN, JJ.

*723ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).