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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Custom Dynamics, LLC, 

 Petitioner/Judgment Creditor, 

v. 

Michael Schultz d/b/a Everything 

L.E.D.- Harley, 

 Respondent/Judgment Debtor. 

No. 18-00011-MC

CHARGING ORDER AGAINST THE 

INTEREST OF MICHAEL SCHULTZ 

IN EVERYTHING LED HARLEY 

DAVIDSON, L.L.C.

Petitioner/Judgment Creditor Custom Dynamics, LLC (“Custom”), pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 69 and A.R.S. § 29–655, filed a petition with the Court (the “Petition”) seeking a 

Charging Order against the interest of Respondent/Judgment Debtor Michael Schutz, d/b/a 

Everything L.E.D. – Harley (“Schultz”) in the Arizona limited liability company registered 

as Everything LED Harley Davidson, L.L.C. (“Everything LED”), of which he is a member.

The Court issued its Order to Show Cause directing that Schultz and Everything LED 

appear before the Court on November 13, 2019 at 1:30 PM, before Magistrate Judge Michelle 

H. Burns, to show cause why the relief requested in the Petition should not be granted, and 

on Friday, November 1, 2019 at 2:10 PM, the Petition and Order to Show Cause were served 

on Schultz and Everything LED. (Docs. 28, 30.)

The Court having considered the Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge 

Burns (Doc. 34).

/ / /
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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 34) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:

1. Custom is hereby granted an Order charging the interest of Michael Schultz in 

Everything LED Harley Davidson, L.L.C. with payment of the unsatisfied amount of the 

Judgment (Doc. 21). 

2. Everything LED Harley Davidson, L.L.C., and its members and managers 

therein, are ordered to refrain from paying any monies or profits due to Michael Schultz or 

his assignees until Custom’s Judgment is satisfied in full.

3. Everything LED Harley Davidson, L.L.C., and its members and managers 

therein, are directed to pay to Custom any monies or profits due or to become due to Michael 

Schultz or his assignees. Payments are to be sent to Custom through their counsel of this 

record. 

4. Everything LED Harley Davidson, L.L.C., and its members and managers 

therein, are further ordered to respond to or answer all inquiries from Custom or its counsel, 

with regard to the limited liability company and to allow Custom or its counsel complete 

access to the books and records of the limited liability company.

5. The Court having determined there is no just reason for delay, the Clerk is 

directed to enter this Order forthwith. 

Dated this 19th day of November, 2019.
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 

 

IT IS ORDERED referring the above matter to Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade 

for ruling on the Motion to Resolve Attorney-Client Privilege (Doc. 195) and the Motion 

for Discovery (Doc. 202). 

 Dated this 3rd day of July, 2018. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

United States of America, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

Defendants. 

 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 212 Filed 07/03/18 Page 1 of 1
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance





Exhibit 10.5




SECOND AMENDMENT TO DARK FIBER IRU AGREEMENT




This Second Amendment (“Second Amendment”) to the May 8, 1997 Dark Fiber IRU Agreement between
Metropolitan Fiber Systems of New York, Inc. (“MFS”), and RCN Telecom Services, Inc. (“RCN”), as
successor-in-interest to RCN Telecom Services of New York, Inc. (“the Agreement”) is entered into
this 18th day of June, 2008.



1) This Second Amendment modifies and supplements the Relinquished Fiber Process
and Timeframe as set forth in Section 5 of the December 11, 2007 First Amendment
(“First Amendment”) to the Agreement.



2) The parties acknowledge they have been working collaboratively and in good faith in
connection with completing the December 19, 2007 Relinquished Fiber Project Plan as
contemplated by Section 5 of the First Amendment. Despite these good faith efforts, the
parties have not been able to complete the project in the time frames contemplated by the
First Amendment. As a result, MFS and RCN agree to delete Section 5(a) of the First
Amendment and replace it with the following:




“5(a) The parties shall cooperate and work together in good faith in order to help ensure
the Relinquished Fibers have been returned by RCN to MFS and are fully accessible and
capable of being used by MFS by November 7, 2008. This completion deadline can be extended
only by the written agreement of both parties.”



3) The parties agree that their respective operations teams will meet and confer within a
reasonable time from the date of this Second Amendment, and will revise, refine and
update the December 19, 2007 Relinquished Fiber Project Plan. The parties will continue
to work collaboratively in an effort to complete the Project as quickly as possible.



4) Section 5(b) of the First Amendment shall continue to apply to the Relinquished Fiber
Process and Timeframe according to the revised timeframes set out herein.



5) Except as expressly set forth in this Second Amendment, all the terms and conditions
set forth in First Amendment and the Agreement remain in full force and effect.


 


 









 





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Second Amendment to be executed as
of the date first set forth above by their duly authorized representatives.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	METROPOLITAN FIBER SYSTEMS OF NEW 

YORK, INC.	 	 	 	RCN TELECOM SERVICES, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Thomas F. Meagher
	 	 	 	By:  	/s/ Richard P. Swiderski
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Name: 

	Thomas F. Meagher
	 	 	 	 	Name: 
	Richard P. Swiderski
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Title:

	Director, Long Distance
Transport Planning
	 	 	 	 	Title: 
	CTO — Residential
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Date:  

	6/18/08
	 	 	 	 	Date:
	6/16/08
#### Ocilla Southern Railroad Company *et al. v.*Chatham Bank *&*Trust Company, trustee.

Hines, J.

The rulings complained of in the present bill of exceptions are ‘ controlled by the decision in this case, when the same was before this court on a former occasion *(Chatham Bank & Trust Co.*v. *Ocilla South**797*ern R. Co.,*153 *Ga.*37, 111 S. E. 570); and the court did not err in appointing a receiver, and in ordering the former receiver to turn over to him the property of this company.

No. 3276.

January 20, 1923.

Receivership. Before Judge Eve. Irwin superior court. April 15, 1922.

TP. *F. George, Wall & Grantham,*and *Quincey & Bice,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Lawton & Cunningham*and FP. *E. Kay,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32827-32828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16050]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Objective Evaluation Report (OER), Administration for Native 
Americans.
    OMB No.: 0980-0144.
    Description: The project self-evaluation information collected by 
the Objective Evaluation Report about a grantee's project is needed to 
meet ANA's legislatively required evaluation of grantee locally-
determined financial assistance grant objective. The report is used in 
the following Administration for Native American's Program's 
competitive areas grants--Social and Economic Development Strategies 
(SEDS), ANA Regulatory Environmental Enhancement, ANA Native American 
Languages Preservation and Enhancements, and ANA Mitigation of 
Environomental Impacts to Indian Lands due to Department of Defense 
Activities. The information, when aggregated, is used to evaluate and 
monitor the grant project.
    Respondents: State, Local or Tribal Govt.

                         Annual Burden Estimates                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Average         
                                            Number of   burden    Total 
         Instrument            Number of    responses    hours    burden
                              respondents      per        per     hours 
                                           respondent  response         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OWP.........................        250            1          2      500
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 32828]]



    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 500.
    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be 
obtained by writing to The Administration for Children and Families, 
Office of Information Services, Division of Information Resource 
Management Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer.
    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the 
collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of 
this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best 
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of 
publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed 
information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office 
of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 725 17th Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, Attn: Ms. Wendy Taylor.

    Dated June 19, 1996.
Larry Guerrero,
Director, Office of Information Management Services.
[FR Doc. 96-16050 Filed 6-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
#### Harold ECKLES, James Dean, and James Vaughn, Petitioners, v. CITY OF LUBBOCK and Lubbock Fire Department, Respondents.

No. D-2878.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Dec. 31, 1992.

Rehearing Overruled Jan. 27, 1993.

B. Craig Deats, Austin, for petitioners.

John C. Ross, Jr., Dennis W. McGill, Lubbock, Allen Butler, Jerry D. Mason, Dallas, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners Harold Eckles, James Dean, and James Vaughn, fire inspectors for the City of Lubbock between 1984 and 1987, brought this suit under two former versions of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. art. 1269p seeking compensation for time spent on-call. Because the facts and legal issue in this case are controlled by our decision today in *Tijerina v. City of Tyler,*846 S.W.2d 825 (Tex.1992), without hearing oral argument, we grant petitioners’ application for writ of error, reverse the judgments of the courts below, and remand to the trial court to decide in light of *Tijerina*whether the petitioners were in “continuous contact” and “immediately available,” and, if so, the amount of their damages. Tex.R.Civ.P. 170.
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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. (the Corporation) for the period ended December 25, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certifies 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 Corporation.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Cheryl A. BachelderCheryl A. BachelderChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


Date: March 27, 2017
----

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: July 20, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Robert Kite                                               |
|---------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |   | Robert Kite                                                   |
|                |   | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer               |
|                |   | (Principle Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1057 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1057

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the participation 
   of physical therapists in the National Health Service Corps Loan 
               Repayment Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 14, 2009

    Mr. Tester (for himself, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Cardin, and Mr. Brown) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the participation 
   of physical therapists in the National Health Service Corps Loan 
               Repayment Program, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Physical Therapist Student Loan 
Repayment Eligibility Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS; PARTICIPATION OF PHYSICAL 
              THERAPISTS IN LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM.

    (a) Mission of Corps; Definition of Primary Health Services.--
Section 331(a)(3)(D) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
254d(a)(3)(D)) is amended by striking ``or mental health,'' and 
inserting ``mental health, or physical therapy,''.
    (b) Loan Repayment Program.--Section 338B of the Public Health 
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l-1) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``and physician 
        assistants;'' and inserting ``physician assistants, and 
        physical therapists;''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)(1)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting before the 
                semicolon the following: ``, or have a doctoral or 
                master's degree in physical therapy'';
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``physical 
                therapy,'' after ``mental health,''; and
                    (C) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by inserting 
                ``physical therapy,'' after ``dentistry,''.
                                 <all>
```
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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS SECOND EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff

v.

Michael Lacey, et al., 

Defendants

Case No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL (BSB)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS SECOND EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO 

GOVERNMENT MOTION TO 

DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

Upon Defendants' Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to 

Government Motion to Disqualify Counsel, from the current deadline of May 23, 2018, 

and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

Extending the otherwise applicable time for filing all Defendants' responses to 

government's motion to disqualify counsel for fourteen (14) days and the responses will 

be due on or before June 6, 2018. 

Dated:________________

______________________________ 

HONORABLE BRIDGET S. BADE

United States Magistrate Judge 

432032-1

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 152-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 1
#### David Allen FULKS, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Suzan Kay FULKS, Respondent-Appellant.

No. WD 42392.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 5, 1990.

Edward J. Houlehan, Kansas City, for respondent-appellant.

Robert C. Paden, Independence, for petitioner-respondent.

Before TURNAGE, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and GAITAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal by mother from portion of dissolution of marriage decree awarding joint *897custody with primary physical custody of minor children to the father.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steven Bregman, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of FRMO Corp;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
      information included in this annual 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 annual
      report;

4.    The registrant's other certifying officers 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 we have:

      a.    designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual
            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 officers and I have disclosed, based on
      our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
      committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
      equivalent function):

      a.    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
            controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
            record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
            identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
            internal controls; and

      b.    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
            other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
            internal controls; and


Dated: May 3, 2005

By: /S/ STEVEN BREGMAN
    --------------------
Steven Bregman
President and Chief Operating Officer
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 28 Filed 04/09/18 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 28 Filed 04/09/18 Page 2 of 2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for **

decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

TL/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAMON GARCIA CRUZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-72222

Agency No. A096-151-058

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Ramon Garcia Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his second motion to

reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

FILED

DEC 30 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
TL/Research 2 07-72222

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773

(9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Garcia Cruz’s challenge to the BIA’s January

5, 2005, decision because he failed to file a timely petition for review of that

decision. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia Cruz’s second

motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over two years after the

final administrative order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), and Garcia Gruz did

not show he was entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889,

897 (9th Cir. 2003). 

We decline Garcia Cruz’s request to remand his case to the BIA for

clarification of its order because the BIA’s decision is not ambiguous.

Lastly, we lack jurisdiction to review Garcia Cruz’s contention that the BIA

should have invoked its sua sponte authority to reopen his proceedings. See

Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
Exhibit 23.02



                       Consent Of Independent Accountants


   
     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration
Statement  on Form  S-8  (Nos.  33-77060,  33-93048,  333-49561,  333-56349  and
333-55827) of ATMI,  Inc. of our report dated May 17, 1997,  except for the last
paragraph of Note 3 which is as of July 29, 1997 and the last  paragraph of Note
6 which  is as of  December  18,  1997,  pertaining  to the  combined  financial
statements of Lawrence Semiconductor Laboratories,  Inc. and Affiliate appearing
on page F-3 of this  Form  10-K/A.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  such
financial  statements  are not included  separately in the Form 10-K/A.  We also
consent to the  application of such report to the Financial  Statement  Schedule
for the two years ended  December  31, 1996  appearing on page F-25 of this Form
10-K/A when such schedule is read in conjunction  with the financial  statements
referred to in our report.  The audits  referred to in such report also included
this schedule.
    


Price Waterhouse LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
June 12, 1998