alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Synova Healthcare Group, Inc., (the Company) does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the
Report) 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: August 14, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Stephen E. King    
|                      |  |  |  | Stephen E. King        
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 31164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15547]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-32,268]


Casablanca Fan Company, City of Industry, California; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on April 29, 1996 in response to a worker petition which 
was filed on April 29, 1996 on behalf of workers at Casablanca Fan 
Company, City of Industry, California.
    An active certification covering the petitioning group of workers 
remains in effect (TA-W-32,160). Consequently, further investigation in 
this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been 
terminated.

    Signed in Washington, D.C. this 2nd day of June, 1996.
Russell T. Kile,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-15547 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
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

Merle Joy Turchik, AZ Bar No. 011130

TURCHIK LAW FIRM, P.C.

2205 E. Speedway Blvd.

Tucson, AZ 85719

merle@turchiklawfirm.com

Telephone: (520) 882-7070

Facsimile: (520) 203-0175

David Sanford (D.C. Bar No. 457933, admitted Pro Hac Vice)

SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP

700 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 300

Washington, D.C. 20003

dsanford@sanfordheisler.com 

Telephone: (202) 499-5201

Facsimile: (202) 499-5199

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

[Additional Attorneys Listed After Signature Page]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Patricia MacCorquodale and Janice 

Cervelli, on behalf of themselves and all 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Arizona Board of Regents,

Defendant.

Case No: 4:18-cv-00028-RCC

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Case 4:18-cv-00028-RCC Document 45 Filed 07/24/19 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiffs Patricia MacCorquodale and Janice Cervelli, through counsel, and 

pursuant to Rule 40.2(d), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, give notice of settlement of 

the above-entitled matter. The parties, through their respective counsel, will be filing 

shortly a stipulation to dismiss the matter with prejudice. 

DATED this July 24, 2019.

SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP

By: /s/ Andrew Melzer 

Andrew Melzer

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 4:18-cv-00028-RCC Document 45 Filed 07/24/19 Page 2 of 4
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

[Continued from Caption Page]

Andrew Melzer (NY Bar No. 4270682, admitted Pro Hac Vice)

SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP

1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Fl

New York, NY 10019

amelzer@sanfordheisler.com

Telephone: (646) 402-5657

Facsimile: (646) 402-5651

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 4:18-cv-00028-RCC Document 45 Filed 07/24/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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 July 24, 2019, I electronically transmitted the attached 

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, and mailed a copy of 

same to the following if non-registrants:

Robert K. Jones (State Bar No. 016228)

Monica M. Ryden (State Bar No. 023986)

Victoria Chavey (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

JACKSON LEWIS P.C.

2111 East Highland Avenue, Suite B-250

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Telephone: (602) 714-7044

Facsimile: (602) 714-7045

robert.jones@jacksonlewis.com

monica.ryden@jacksonlewis.com

victoria.chavey@jacksonlewis.com

By: /s/ Trevor Byrne

Case 4:18-cv-00028-RCC Document 45 Filed 07/24/19 Page 4 of 4
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISRICT OF ARIZONA

James Rogers, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

Maricopa County Community College 

District, a political subdivision of 

Arizona; Maria Wise, an individual; and

Vivian Miranda-Strawbridge, an 

individual 

Defendants.

NO. CV2018-00605 PHX-GMS

ORDER 

Upon motion of Defendants’ Motion to Allow An Early Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY OREERED granting such motion and Defendants may, if 

appropriate, file a second motion for summary judgment pursuant to the Case 

Management Order to be entered in this action.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall on or before seven days from 

the entry of this Order provide a two-page letter in response to Defense counsel’s twopage letter regarding the issues to be raised in the proposed motion for partial summary 

judgment; such letters must comply with this Court’s standard Case Management Order 

paragraph 11 available through http://www.azd.uscourts.gov.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file these letters with the 

Court on or before _____________, 2018, and shall call the Court the same day to 

schedule a time for a pre-motion conference.

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 16-1 Filed 04/27/18 Page 1 of 2
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 April 27, 2018, I electronically lodged the attached 

document using ECF for filing and transmitted the document through ECF to the 

following registered ECF users:

Israel G. Torres

James E. Barton, II

Saman Golestan

TORRES LAW GROUP, PLLC

2239 W. Baseline Rd.

Tempe, AZ 85283

Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/ Kimberly Kershner

5165341.1

109883.024

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 16-1 Filed 04/27/18 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 941 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 941

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      December 3, 2009.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4154) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to repeal the new carryover basis rules in order to prevent tax increases 
and the imposition of compliance burdens on many more estates than would benefit 
from repeal, to retain the estate tax with a $3,500,000 exemption, and for other 
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to 
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2.  In the engrossment of H.R. 4154, the Clerk shall--
            (1) add the text of H.R. 2920, as passed by the House, as new matter 
        at the end of H.R. 4154;
            (2) conform the title of H.R. 4154 to reflect the addition to the 
        engrossment of the text of H.R. 2920;
            (3) assign appropriate designations to provisions within the 
        engrossment; and
            (4) conform provisions for short titles within the engrossment.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 895 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 895

 Honoring the lives of the brave soldiers and civilians of the United 
 States Army who died or were wounded in the tragic attack of November 
                     5, 2009, at Fort Hood, Texas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 6, 2009

    Mr. Carter (for himself and Mr. Edwards of Texas) submitted the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Honoring the lives of the brave soldiers and civilians of the United 
 States Army who died or were wounded in the tragic attack of November 
                     5, 2009, at Fort Hood, Texas.

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the lives of the 
brave soldiers and civilians of the United States Army who died or were 
wounded in the tragic attack of November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, Texas.  
The American people share the pain and grief of this tragic loss. Our 
thoughts and prayers will continue to be with the families of those who 
were so unfortunately taken from them.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 5

EXHIBIT 5

Case 2:18-cv-00817-GMS Document 1-5 Filed 03/13/18 Page 1 of 13
Case 2:18-cv-00817-GMS Document 1-5 Filed 03/13/18 Page 2 of 13
Case 2:18-cv-00817-GMS Document 1-5 Filed 03/13/18 Page 3 of 13
Case 2:18-cv-00817-GMS Document 1-5 Filed 03/13/18 Page 4 of 13
Case 2:18-cv-00817-GMS Document 1-5 Filed 03/13/18 Page 5 of 13
Case 2:18-cv-00817-GMS Document 1-5 Filed 03/13/18 Page 6 of 13
Case 2:18-cv-00817-GMS Document 1-5 Filed 03/13/18 Page 7 of 13
Case 2:18-cv-00817-GMS Document 1-5 Filed 03/13/18 Page 8 of 13
Case 2:18-cv-00817-GMS Document 1-5 Filed 03/13/18 Page 9 of 13
Case 2:18-cv-00817-GMS Document 1-5 Filed 03/13/18 Page 10 of 13
Case 2:18-cv-00817-GMS Document 1-5 Filed 03/13/18 Page 11 of 13
Case 2:18-cv-00817-GMS Document 1-5 Filed 03/13/18 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:18-cv-00817-GMS Document 1-5 Filed 03/13/18 Page 13 of 13
**EXHIBIT
              21**


PMA
      Capital CorporationSignificant Subsidiaries of RegistrantAs of December
      31, 2005


PMA
      Capital Corporation (Pennsylvania)     Pennsylvania
      Manufacturers' Association Insurance Company
      (Pennsylvania)     Pennsylvania Manufacturers
      Indemnity Company (Pennsylvania)     Manufacturers
      Alliance Insurance Company (Pennsylvania)     PMA
      Capital Insurance Company
      (Pennsylvania)          PMA
      Holdings Ltd.
      (Bermuda)               Pennsylvania
      Manufacturers' International Insurance Ltd.
      (Bermuda)     Mid-Atlantic States Investment
      Company
      (Delaware)          High
      Mountain Reinsurance, Ltd.
      (Cayman)          PMA
      Insurance SPC, Cayman (Cayman)     PMA Re
      Management Company (Pennsylvania)     PMA
      Management Corp. (Pennsylvania)
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

OAO 435

AZ Form (Rev. 10/2018)

1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE

4. FIRM NAME

5. MAILING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE 8. ZIP CODE

9. CASE NUMBER 10. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

11. 12. 

13. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

14. 15. STATE

16. ORDER FOR

9 APPEAL 9 CRIMINAL

9 NON-APPEAL 9 CIVIL

9 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

9 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER (Specify)

17. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested.)

PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)

9TESTIMONY (Specify)

9PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING

9OTHER (Specify)

9VOIR DIRE

9OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

9OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

9CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)

9CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

9OPINION OF COURT

9JURY INSTRUCTIONS

9SENTENCING

9BAIL HEARING

18. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL + 1

(original to Court,

copy to ordering party)

FIRST

COPY

# OF

ADDITIONAL

COPIES

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(Check all that apply.)

ESTIMATED COSTS

30 DAYS 9 9

PAPER COPY

PDF (e-mail)

ASCII (e-mail)

14 DAYS 9 9

7 DAYS(expedited) 9 9

DAILY

9 9

HOURLY

9 9

REALTIME

9 9

E-MAIL ADDRESS

NOTE: IF ORDERING MORE THAN ONE FORMAT, 

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE. 19. SIGNATURE

20. DATE

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY

ESTIMATE TOTAL

PROCESSED BY PHONE NUMBER

ORDER RECEIVED DATE BY

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES

TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE

DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY

3 DAYS

CERTIFICATION (19. & 20.) By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1549 Filed 03/24/23 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit “A”

Filed Under Seal

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1139-1 Filed 03/31/21 Page 1 of 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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Scott Daniel Warren, 

 Defendant. 

CR 18-223-TUC-RCC (BPV)

O R D E R 

CONTINUING PLEA DEADLINE 

AND TRIAL 

 

 This case is presently set for trial on June 12, 2018. The Government filed 

a motion to continue and, for the reasons set forth therein, additional time is required 

to adequately prepare for trial. The Defendant has no objection to a continuance. 

 The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh 

the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial because, for the reasons 

set forth in the motion, failure to grant the continuance is likely to result in a miscarriage 

of justice if the parties are required to go to trial on the present trial date. 

 IT IS ORDERED as follows: 

 1. The date by which the referred magistrate judge hears the change of plea must 

be no later than August 24, 2018 by 3:00 p.m. 

 2. All motions, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be in writing and shall 

be made sufficiently in advance of trial to comply with the time periods set forth in 

LRCiv. 7.2 and any court order and to avoid any delays in the trial. Pretrial motions may 

be heard before a magistrate judge and a Report and Recommendation will be provided to 

the district judge assigned to the case. 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-BPV Document 78 Filed 05/24/18 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

 3. This matter is RESET for trial on September 11, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. Counsel 

are to be present at 9:00 a.m. 

 4. Excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7) is found to commence on 

June 13, 2018 and end on September 11, 2018. Such time shall be in addition to other 

excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act and shall commence as of the day following 

the day that would otherwise be the last day for commencement of trial. 

 5. That any and all subpoenas previously issued shall remain in full force and 

effect through the new trial date. 

 6. Any motion or stipulation to continue the scheduled trial date and change 

of plea deadline shall be filed with the Clerk of Court no later than 5:00 p.m., 

Monday, August 27, 2018. Alternatively, by that same deadline, if after consultation 

between government and defense counsel it is determined that a motion to continue 

the scheduled trial date and change of plea deadline will not be filed, government 

counsel shall notify the Court by an email to the chambers email address that the 

case and counsel are ready to proceed to trial on the scheduled trial date. The 

notification shall also include the estimated number of trial days needed to complete 

the trial. 

 Dated this 24th day of May, 2018. 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-BPV Document 78 Filed 05/24/18 Page 2 of 2
```

                                         SCE Funding LLC
                              Annual Summary of Monthly Certificates
                                     Year Ending December 2005
                                             Unaudited

                                                                                Small
                                                       Residential           Commercial
                                                        Customers             Customers         Total
                                                       -----------           ----------         -----

Kilowatt hours of electricity billed                 28,150,943,799        4,843,203,691   32,994,147,490

FTA Charged per kilowatt hour (Jan.-Dec. 2005)         0.843(cents)          0.892(cents)         N/A

Billed FTA Charges                                     $237,312,456          $43,201,377     $280,513,833

Estimated FTA Payments                                 $236,125,894          $43,028,571     $279,154,465

Estimated Write-off                                      $1,186,562             $172,806       $1,359,368

Remittance Shortfall - increased payment                   $923,535             $130,817       $1,054,352
                                 to the Collection
Account
Excess Remittance - reduced payment                              $0                   $0               $0
                                 to the Collection
Account
Net Write-off                                            $2,110,097             $303,623       $2,413,720

FTA Payments estimated to have been                    $237,306,150          $43,199,079     $280,505,229
                                received by the
Servicer
Remittance Shortfall - increased payment                   $923,535             $130,817       $1,054,352
                                 to the Collection
Account
Excess Remittance - reduced payment                              $0                   $0               $0
                                 to the Collection
Account
Aggregate Remittance to Collection Account             $238,229,685          $43,329,896     $281,559,581
```
Exhibit 15

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1060-5 Filed 09/23/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1060-5 Filed 09/23/20 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ira HARRIS, Appellant. Ira HARRIS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 60371, 62764.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Aug. 2, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 30, 1994.

Loyce A. Hamilton, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

KAROHL, Judge.

In a previous opinion we affirmed convictions and sentences on ten felony charges. *State v. Harris,*860 S.W.2d 839 (Mo.App.E.D.1993). At the request of the parties we remanded for a *Batson v. Kentucky,*476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) hearing, on the state’s preemptory strikes. The trial court conducted the hearing. It denied defendant’s due process challenge.

We find no error in findings that the prosecutor furnished legally sufficient, race-neutral, and non-pretextual reasons to strike one white and two black venirepersons from the panel and one black alternate. Applying the standard of review provided in *State v. Parker,*836 S.W.2d 930, 939 (Mo. banc 1992), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 636, 121 L.Ed.2d 566 (1992) we find no error in the ruling.

Defendant did not challenge and therefore did not preserve the sufficiency of the state’s explanation regarding the alternate. The explanations offered by the prosecutor for the other three were multiple for each. The state struck a white woman because she was perceived to be “tough” and her husband occasionally spoke with one of the victims. It struck a biack male who said he would require the state to remove all doubt to support a guilty verdict; he also wanted to leave town on personal business. The third strike was a black female. She was a burglary victim who had problems with the concept of identification.

The explanations were sufficient without considering an explanation common to many strikes, the venireperson was related to *731someone with prior criminal charges or convictions. Defendant’s claims of pretext went only to the criminal activity issue. They were, therefore, insufficient to demonstrate pretext in a case where other legally sufficient reasons were given and accepted by the trial court. Defendant is obligated to demonstrate pretext. *State v. Antwine,*743 S.W.2d 51, 64 (Mo. banc 1987). Where sufficient reasons are given and there is no claim of pretext to rebut them, the ruling denying relief is not erroneous.

We affirm denial of *Batson*motion contesting the composition of the jury.

CRANE, P.J., and CRAHAN, J., concur.