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

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

CR-18-422-PHX-DJH

ORDER

Upon Motion of the United States, with good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Trial Attorney Austin M. Berry is granted leave from the 

Court to attend the September 5, 2023 Status Conference by phone. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 

_______________________

Hon. Diane J. Humetewa 

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1751-1 Filed 09/03/23 Page 1 of 1
|   | (i)    |   | the      accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended      December 31, 2009 (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/      Alfred C. Liggins, III                   |   |   |
|   |   |                                              |   |   |
|   |   | Name:      Alfred C. Liggins, III                 |   |   |
|   |   | Title:      President and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 716 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 716

Recognizing Gail Abarbanel and the Rape Treatment Center, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2009

   Mr. Kennedy (for himself, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Waxman, Mr. 
   Schiff, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Berman, Mr. Wexler, and Ms. 
DeLauro) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing Gail Abarbanel and the Rape Treatment Center, and for other 
                               purposes.

Whereas in a study conducted by the Department of Justice and the Centers for 
        Disease Control and Prevention, researchers found that 1 in 6 women are 
        victims of rape or attempted rape;
Whereas on average, a person is sexually assaulted in the United States every 
        2\1/2\ minutes;
Whereas Gail Abarbanel, the founder and director of the Rape Treatment Center at 
        the Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center, created the Fast Track Forensics 
        Program, an innovative program that speeds up the processing of DNA 
        evidence to assist local law enforcement agencies;
Whereas delays in processing rape kits hamper investigations, jeopardize public 
        safety, and result in lost justice for the victims who report their rape 
        to the police and consent to the 4- to 6-hour rape kit collection 
        process;
Whereas the Rape Treatment Center is nationally recognized for its exemplary 
        treatment, education, and prevention programs; and
Whereas the work of Gail Abarbanel and the Rape Treatment Center helps sexual 
        assault victims become whole again by addressing the social, emotional, 
        and physical pain resulting from the violence of sexual assault: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) applauds Gail Abarbanel for founding the Rape Treatment 
        Center and creating the Fast Track Forensics Program;
            (2) commends the Rape Treatment Center for its work in 
        providing the necessary services to victims of sexual assault;
            (3) calls upon local law enforcement agencies and State 
        legislatures to work towards eliminating the delays in 
        processing rape kits by utilizing innovative programs such as 
        the Fast Track Forensics Program; and
            (4) urges the Congress to support programs that facilitate 
        the timely processing of DNA evidence to assist local law 
        enforcement agencies.
                                 <all>
```
H. Res. 92 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 28, 2009. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1) making supplemental appropriations 

for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, 

energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, 

and State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. Further 

general debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments 

specified in this resolution and shall not exceed one hour 

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The 

amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee 

on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 

adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. 

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 

for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
2 

•HRES 92 EH 

rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment 

to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed 

in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such 

further amendment may be offered only in the order printed 

in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated 

in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 

for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 

division of the question in the House or in the Committee of 

the Whole. All points of order against such further amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule 

XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may have 

been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as 

ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit 

with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. The chair of the Committee on Appropriations 

shall insert in the Congressional Record not later than February 4, 2009, such material as he may deem explanatory of 

appropriations measures for the fiscal year 2009. 
3 

•HRES 92 EH 

SEC. 3. The chair of the Committee on Ways and Means 

may file, on behalf of the Committee, a supplemental report 

to accompany H.R. 598. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Order filed October 10, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00547-CV

____________

DEK-M NATIONWIDE, LTD, Appellant

V.

DAVID HILL D/B/A DOH OIL CO. CASSIE MOSELEY & DAVID 

MOSELEY AND COLORADO COUNTY CENTRAL APPRAISAL 

DISTRICT, Appellees

On Appeal from the 2nd 25th District Court

Colorado County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 23,859

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed July 9, 2019. To date, the filing fee 

of $205.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant is excused by statute or the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying costs has been filed. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 5. Therefore, the court issues the following order. 
Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $205.00 to the clerk 

of this court on or before October 25, 2019. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant fails 

to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be 

dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Hassan.
#### KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Movant, v. Joseph W. NIENABER, Respondent.

No. 94-SC-285-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

June 23, 1994.

*796ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a motion by the Kentucky Bar Association requesting the entry of an order pursuant to SCR 3.435(4) suspending Joseph W. Niena-ber from the practice of law for a period of six months. The motion was brought in response to an Order of the Ohio Supreme Court suspending Mr. Nienaber for violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4) and 7-102(A)(5) of the Code of Professional Responsibility as adopted by the Supreme Court of Ohio. Similar provisions have been adopted by this Court in Supreme Court Rules 3.130-8.3(c) and 3.130-3.3(a)(l) and (2), respectively. The respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) in Ohio when he- engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The respondent was also found to have violated DR 7-102(A)(5) when he knowingly made a false statement of fact by submitting false expense vouchers to the Hamilton County Court.

Given the seriousness of the violations and the mandate of SCR 3.435(4) requiring reciprocal disciplinary action, it is now ordered that the respondent should be and is hereby suspended from the practice of law in this Commonwealth for a period of six months and until further order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

> 1.Respondent shall comply with the provisions of SCR 3.390 regarding notice to all courts in which he has matters pending and to all clients for whom he is actively involved in representation, of his inability to continue to represent them and of the urgent necessity of promptly retaining new counsel. Respondent shall also return all active files to his clients.

> 2. Respondent shall pay the costs of this proceeding.

> 3. Any application for reinstatement will be governed by SCR 3.510, or any subsequent amendment to SCR 3.510.

It is so ORDERED.

ENTERED: June 23, 1994.

/s/ Robert F. Stephens ROBERT F. STEPHENS, Chief Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 999 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 999

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 12, 2010.
    Resolved, That the Clerk of the House inform the Senate that a quorum of the 
House is present and that the House is ready to proceed with business.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jackie RICHARDSON, Appellant.

Docket No. WD 49824.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 20, 1995.

Judith LaRose, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and BERREY and SPINDEN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals his conviction of unlawful use of a weapon, § 571.030.1(1), RSMo 1994. Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 959 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 959

  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
  consideration of a regulation of individual activity disguised as a 
                                  tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 9, 2009

Mr. Poe of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                       to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
  consideration of a regulation of individual activity disguised as a 
                                  tax.

    Resolved, That clause 5 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) It shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint 
resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying an increase in the 
amount of tax imposed on individuals under chapter 1 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 if such tax is determined by reference (directly 
or indirectly) to the gross income of the taxpayer and the imposition 
of the tax is based solely on the taxpayer's violation of a 
condition.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,427
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        8
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,435
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 661,549
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,056
<BONDS>                                        592,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0<F1>
<PREFERRED>                                          0<F1>
<COMMON>                                             0<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,293
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   661,549
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     8
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     3
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      5
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  3
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         3
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>NO COMMON OR PREFERRED SHARES ISSUED AND OUTSTANDING. EQUITY=MEMBER'S EQUITY.
</FN>


</TABLE>
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. 

Dan Hyer,

Defendant.

No. CR-18-00422-005-PHX-SMB

ORDER

(Sixth Request)

The Court having reviewed the Government’s Motion to Continue Sentencing, there 

being no objection, and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion to Continue Sentencing (Doc. 1127).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED continuing the Sentencing from April 5, 2021, to

December 13, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Phoenix, Arizona.

Dated this 2nd day of March, 2021.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1128 Filed 03/03/21 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,

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CR-18-00422-001-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

This case is before the Court on its own review. A Final Pretrial Conference has 

been scheduled for July 27, 2023, at 1:00 p.m. (Doc. 1546). In that Order, the Court 

instructed the parties to meet with AV Support before and after the Final Pretrial 

Conference. (Id. at 5–6). The Court will reserve three hours for the Final Pretrial 

Conference and thus will reset the date and time on which the parties can meet with AV 

Support. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED resetting the date and time for the parties to meet with AV 

Support. Both sides shall meet with AV Support on August 3, 2023, in Courtroom 605

instead of the previously scheduled times on July 27, 2023. Representatives from the 

Government shall come at 9:30 a.m. and representatives from the Defense shall come at 

11:00 a.m. 

Dated this 23rd day of June, 2023.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1619 Filed 06/23/23 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1



ACCOUNTANT'S CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Cyberian Outpost, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Nos.
333-95899 and 333-64403) on Form S-8 of Cyberian Outpost, Inc. of our reports
dated March 17, 2000, relating to the balance sheets of Cyberian Outpost, Inc.
as of February 29, 2000 and February 28, 1999, and the related statements of
operations, redeemable preferred stock and stockholders' equity, and cash flow
for each of the years in the three-year period ended February 29, 2000, and
related schedule, which reports appear in the February 29, 2000 annual report on
Form 10-K of Cyberian Outpost, Inc.


                                    KPMG LLP

Providence, Rhode Island
May 17, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND BALANCE SHEET OF INSPIRE INSURANCE SOLUTIONS, INC.
AS OF AND FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          27,600
<SECURITIES>                                    20,494
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,096
<ALLOWANCES>                                       495
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,984
<PP&E>                                          25,504
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,679
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,808
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,597
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           187
<OTHER-SE>                                     120,158
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,808
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,178
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,578
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  59
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,276
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,706
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,310
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,570
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.65<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58<F1>
<FN>
<F1>ON AUGUST 17, 1998, INSPIRE INSURANCE SOLUTIONS, INC. EFFECTED A THREE-
FOR-TWO STOCK SPLIT. PRIOR FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULES HAVE NOT BEEN RESTATED FOR 
THE STOCK SPLIT.
</FN>
        
 

</TABLE>
_________________ 

_________________ 

Cite as: 550 U. S. ____ (2007) 1 

Opinion in Chambers 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Nos. 06A1001 and 06A1002 (06–1195 and 06–1196) 

LAKHDAR BOUMEDIENE ET AL. 

06–1195 v.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 

STATES, ET AL. 

KHALED A. F. AL ODAH, NEXT FRIEND OF FAWZI 

KHALID ABDULLAH FAHAD AL ODAH, ET AL. 

06–1196 v.

UNITED STATES ET AL. 

ON APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND SUSPENSION 

OF ORDER DENYING CERTIORARI 

[April 26, 2007] 

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, Circuit Justice. 

We denied applicants’ petitions for certiorari, 549 U. S. 

___ (2007), and they now bring two requests: first, a 122-

day extension of time in which to file a petition for rehearing of the order denying certiorari, and second, suspension 

of the order denying certiorari. Both applications are

denied. 

1. This Court’s Rules expressly provide for extensions of 

time in which to file a petition for writ of certiorari, Rule 

13.5, or a petition for rehearing of a “judgment or decision 

. . . on the merits,” Rule 44.1, but they do not provide for 

any extension of time in which to file a petition for rehearing of an order denying certiorari. Such an order is plainly

not a “judgment or decision . . . on the merits.” Indeed, 

while Rule 44.1 establishes a 25-day period for filing a

petition for rehearing of a judgment on the merits “unless

the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time,” Rule 
2 BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH 

Opinion in Chambers 

44.2, articulating a 25-day period for filing a petition for 

rehearing of an order denying certiorari, contains no such

exception, confirming that the Rules do not contemplate

granting an extension for such petitions. 

2. An order denying certiorari “will not be suspended 

pending disposition of a petition for rehearing except by

order of the Court or a Justice.” Rule 16.3. This most 

extraordinary relief will not be granted unless there is a 

“reasonable likelihood of this Court’s reversing its previous position and granting certiorari.” Richmond v. Arizona, 434 U. S. 1323 (1977) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers). 

In arguing for suspension, applicants point to a motion

filed by the Government in the District Court as part of 

ongoing proceedings below. They contend that, if the

motion is granted, or if certain other actions are taken by

the lower courts, there will be an adverse effect on the 

review available to them under the Detainee Treatment 

Act of 2005, Tit. X, 119 Stat. 2739. This does not satisfy 

the rigorous standard we have established for Rule 16.3 

relief. Applicants do not even point to any action by the 

lower courts as prompting their request for extraordinary

relief—only the filing of motions and possible court action. 

Such grounds can hardly provide a basis for believing this 

Court would reverse course and grant certiorari. Accordingly, suspension of the order is not warranted.