alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT A 

No. Witness

14 D. Braga

19 A. Chapman

23 S. Columbo 

34 J. Dougherty

38 A. Ferrer

52 P. Gordon

55 A. Gutierrez

83 A. Levy

86 A. Lutnick

88 J. Mars

100 A. Murphy

109 A. Padilla 

116 Rep. of BDO

117 Rep. of BMO

153 S. Vienneau

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1859-1 Filed 10/14/23 Page 1 of 1
exv10w4





Exhibit
10.4



UST 320




CONSENT




     We, the undersigned, hereby do consent to the adoption of the amendments to the “Benefit
Plans” as defined in and as described in the attached resolutions to Amend Benefit Plans to Comply
With Emergency Economic Stabilization Act adopted as of October 31, 2008, by the Board of
Directors, as and to the extent, and for the period, required by the provisions of Section 111 of
the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”) applicable to participants in the Capital
Purchase Program under EESA and the rules and regulations issued by the Department of the Treasury.


Agreed to and acknowledged as of the                      day of February 2009.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

David L. Payne
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

John “Robert” A. Thorson
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

Jennifer J. Finger
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

Dennis R. Hansen
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

David Robinson
#### R. BEUC ARCHITECTS, INC., Respondent, v. Richard NEMETH and Betty C. Nemeth, Appellants.

No. 63159.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Dec. 28, 1993.

Theodore Dennis Dealing, Clayton, for appellants.

Jill S. Bollwerk, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before GARY M. GAERTNER, C.J., and SIMON and PUDLOWSKI, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Richard and Betty Nemeth, appeal from the trial court’s order entered in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County granting respondent’s, R. Beuc Architects, Inc.’s, motion for new trial. We affirm.

The action of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. In addition, no error of law appears. As we find an opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the trial court’s order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 31.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Reese Baglole, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Madrona Ventures
     Inc.;

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

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this
     quarterly report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and 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 quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     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

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
12th day of March, 2007.


/s/ Reese Baglole
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice 134208 & (23) (24) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices v SC: 134208 COA: 275419 Wayne CC: 03-001583-01, 03-001582-01, 03-002568-01, 03-002554-01 HENRY CHARLES DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 4, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal with in 28 days after the date of this
order. The application for leave to appeal and the motions for miscellaneous relief remain pending.

s0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

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

## FILED August 21, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41297 Summary Calendar

MICHAEL DEAN PERRY Plaintiff - Appellant

v. MAXI CIRLIANO, Sheriff, Gregg County, LONGVIEW POLICE DEPARTMENT, UNIDENTIFIED DENMON, Captain, Gregg County Jail, GENE ANDERSON, Officer, Gregg County Jail, SHANNON STANDARD, Officer, Gregg County Jail Defendants - Appellees

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:01-CV-482

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Michael Dean Perry, Texas prisoner #1084501, appeals from the denial of his postjudgment motion for a new trial, which was properly construed as a motion for relief from judgment under

F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). See Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc. , 784 F.2d 665, 667 (5th Cir. 1986)(en banc). In the instant appeal, Perry has filed motions seeking appointmentNo. 02-41297 -2- of counsel and production of a transcript at government expense. Those motions are DENIED. In his F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b) motion, Perry challenged the dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit on the grounds that: (1) he had not been admonished of his right to appeal; (2) he was denied full disclosure of the evidence; (3) his requests for appointment of counsel had been denied; (4) he was denied access to adequate legal materials; and (5) the jail personnel interfered with his right to access the courts. Perry’s lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice because he failed to obey the magistrate judge’s order and answer questions posed to him on cross-examination during the bench trial. As none of Perry’s arguments in his F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b) motion addressed that sole basis for dismissal, the denial of that motion was

proper. See Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi , 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981). As Perry’s appeal lacks arguable merit, it is DISMISSED AS
FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). If he accumulates three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Perry will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated orNo. 02-41297 -3- detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Id.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED; THREE-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4096

PETER LLOYD COLEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.

Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge.

(CR-96-13)

Submitted: June 20, 2002

Decided: July 11, 2002

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Richard L. Derrico, COPENHAVER, ELLETT, CORNELISON &

DERRICO, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John W. Brownlee,

United States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States

Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Peter Lloyd Coley appeals the district court’s order reducing his

sentence to 240 months pursuant to the Government’s Fed. R. Crim.

P. 35(b) motion. Coley’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one sentencing

issue on appeal but recognizing that Coley waived his appellate rights

in his agreement with the Government. Coley filed a pro se supplemental brief asserting the terms of his 1996 plea agreement with the

Government were violated. 

Coley and the Government entered into an agreement prior to the

filing of the Government’s "Conditional Motion Pursuant to Rule

35(b)." Specifically, the parties agreed that Coley’s sentence would be

reduced to 240 months and he would not appeal his sentence. Coley

contends that this agreement denies his Fifth Amendment right to due

process. A sentence that does not violate the law or incorrectly apply

the Sentencing Guidelines cannot be appealed. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3742(a)(1994). This court lacks jurisdiction to review a sentence

properly reduced pursuant to a Rule 35 motion. See United States v.

Hill, 70 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Pridgen, 64 F.3d

147, 150 (4th Cir. 1995). 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore dismiss this appeal. This court requires that counsel inform his

client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,

then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state a copy thereof was served on

the client. 

2 UNITED STATES v. COLEY
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid in the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

UNITED STATES v. COLEY 3
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40418 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. ALBERTO PEREZ

- ORTEGA, also known as Alberto Perez

- Ortego , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:13

- CR

- 1203

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alberto Perez

- Ortega appeals the 36

- month, non

- guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in viola tion of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence on the ground that it is greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 9, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40418 Document: 00512931357 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2015No. 14

- 40418

Because Perez

- Ortega does not argue that the district court committed any procedural error in imposing the sentence, we limit our review to the issue whether the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). When the district court has imposed a sentence that varie s from the guidelines range, reasonableness review requires that we evaluate whether the sentence “unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors” set forth in § 3553(a). United States v. Smith , 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). Although Perez asserts that the district court gave too much weight to his prior convictions and not enough weight to the fact that he had changed his life for the better and his benign motive for illegally reentering this country, the record does not refl ect that the district court did not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. S ee S mith , 440 F.3d at 708. Rather, the record reflects that the district court considered the Guidelines and policy statements, the sentencing factors of § 3553(a), the Presentence Report, and Perez

- Ortega’s arguments in mitigation of his sentence. Additionally, although t he 36

- month sentence is 20 months greater than the top of the guidelines range, we have upheld much greater variances. See , e.g. , United States v. Key , 599 F.3d 469, 475

- 76 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Herrera

- Garduno , 519 F.3d 526, 531

- 32 (5th Cir. 2008). Based on the totality of the circumstances, including the significant deference that is due to a district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, the sentence imposed was reasonable. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 50

- 53; United States v. Brantley , 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 14-40418 Document: 00512931357 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2015
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

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

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (NY 15873, admitted pro hac vice)

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120

Buffalo, New York 14202

Telephone: (716) 849-1333

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580

pcambria@lglaw.com

Attorney for Defendant Michael Lacey

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 

 Defendants.

NO. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL (BSB)

DEFENDANT LACEY’S

NOTICE OF JOINDER IN DEFENDANT 

PADILLA’S OPPOSITION TO 

GOVERNMENT’S

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY

(Oral argument requested)

Defendant Michael Lacey, by and through his undersigned attorney, hereby joins in 

Defendant Andrew Padilla’s Opposition to Government’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel (Doc. 

177). Mr. Lacey adopts the positions set forth in that opposition as if fully set forth herein.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 8th day of June, 2018, 

/s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 188 Filed 06/08/18 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

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

On June 8, 2018, a PDF version

of this document was filed with

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF

System for filing and for Transmittal

Of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the

Following CM/ECF registrants:

Dominic Lanza, dominic.lanza@usdoj.gov

Kevin Rapp, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 188 Filed 06/08/18 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 651 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 651

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 16, 2009.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and she is hereby, elected to 
the following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Education and Labor: Ms. Chu.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-22-00373-CR

Hector RIVERA Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CRB000096D2

Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED June 7, 2023.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

2AO 435

AZ Form (Rev. )

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

APPEAL CRIMINAL

NON-APPEAL CIVIL

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER 6SHFLI\

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

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

TESTIMONY (6SHFLI\

PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING

OTHER (6SHFLI\)

VOIR DIRE

OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

OPINION OF COURT

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

SENTENCING

BAIL HEARING

18. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL + 1

(original to Court,

copy to ordering party)

FIRST

COPY

# OF

ADDITIONAL

COPIES

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(&heck all that apply) ESTIMATED COSTS

30 DAYS  

PAPER COPY

3')HPDLO

$6&,,HPDLO

14 DAYS 

7 DAYSH[SHGLWHG  

DAILY



HOURLY

 

REALTIME

 

E-MAIL ADDRESS

NOTE: IF ORDERING 025(7+$121()250$7, 

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

'$<6

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

(deposit plus additional).

David Eisenberg 602-237-5076 

Law Office of David Eisenberg, PLC

3550 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1155 Phoenix AZ 85012

18CR422

US v. Lacey, et al. Phoenix AZ

✔ ✔

✔

david@deisenbergplc.com

s/David Eisenberg



WUDQVFULSWVUHTXHVWHG for inclusion in 

appellate record (CA 22-10000)

Y

'NW

'NW

9

9 'NW

9

'LDQH+XPHWHZD  

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1456 Filed 01/31/22 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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Inocente Flores Maciel, 

Defendant.

No. CR-18-0340-PHX-DLR

 CR-15-1033-PHX-DLR 

DETENTION ORDER 

 In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), the issue of 

detention was addressed at a hearing on March 28, 2018. The Court was informed that 

the defendant is subject to other custody and is not eligible for release at this time. 

 The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is subject to 

other custody and should be similarly detained in this case. If circumstances change such 

that defendant is no longer in custody in the other matter, defendant shall have leave to 

request that the matter of detention be reopened in this case. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant be detained pending further proceedings. The 

defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated 

representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, 

from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The 

defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense 

counsel. On order of the Court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the 

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to 
- 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 

the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a Court 

proceeding. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should a motion for review/reconsideration of 

this detention order be filed, it is counsel's responsibility to deliver a copy of the motion 

for review/reconsideration to Pretrial Services at least one day prior to the hearing. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a release to a third party is to be considered, it 

is counsel's responsibility to notify Pretrial Services sufficiently in advance of the hearing 

to allow Pretrial Services an opportunity to interview and investigate the potential third 

party custodian. 

 Dated this 30th day of March, 2018.