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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jeremy Pinson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Unknown Ivey, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00152-TUC-DCB

ORDER 

 Plaintiff sues Defendants, including Ivey, for denying her prescribed hormone 

treatment which posed a threat to her health because “immediate cessation of the 

medications could cause sudden death from a stroke, heart attack, or pulmonary 

embolism.” (Screening Order (Doc. 15) at 3.) Plaintiff proceeds against Defendant Ivey 

under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA). 

On March 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause complaining 

that Ivey and another officer are using their positions of employment to harass and retaliate 

against her for being a jail house lawyer and suing people. They allegedly threatened to 

have her transferred to Hazelton, where she is aware “Whitey Bulger” was violently 

murdered in 2018. Plaintiff alleges this is a death threat. 

The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed approximately 11 law suits in federal court 

since 2013, with nine filed in 2018. Assuming the allegations in the motion are related to 

this case and not Plaintiff’s general litigious nature, a motion for order to show cause is not 

a way around pleading requirements that cover amending a complaint. Especially, it is not 
- 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 

a way around the PLRA, which requires exhaustion of all administrative remedies” as a 

perquisite to bringing new claims. Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 

2010). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Order to Show Cause (Doc. 31) is DENIED. 

 Dated this 19th day of March, 2019.
**EXHIBIT
        23.1**
  **CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
  Chordiant
        Software, Inc.
 Cupertino,
        California
  We
        hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
        on Form S-8 (No. 333-100843, No. 333-83506; No. 333-60156; 333-49032; No.
        333-42844; No. 333-34502; No. 333-110743, No. 333-131057, and 333-145080)
        of
        Chordiant Software, Inc. of our reports dated November 15, 2007, relating
        to the
        consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, and to
        Chordiant Software, Inc’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing
        in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
  /s/
        BDO Seidman, LLP
  San
        Jose, California
 November
        15, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 120 (Thursday, June 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 31509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15686]



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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

University of Albany, et al.; Notice of Consolidated Decision on 
Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments

    This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 
(Pub. L. 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be 
viewed between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, 
for such purposes as each is intended to be used, is being manufactured 
in the United States.
    Docket Number: 96-012. Applicant: University of Albany, Albany, NY 
12222. Instrument: Mass Spectrometer, Model OPTIMA. Manufacturer: 
Fisons Instruments, United Kingdom. Intended Use: See notice at 61 FR 
11614, March 21, 1996. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides: (1) A 
high sensitivity ion source yielding low H<INF>3<SUP>+ ion production 
during H/D analysis, (2) an acid-bath workstation to permit 
simultaneous C:N ratio analysis and (3) a universal triple collector 
assembly consisting of three Faraday collector buckets capable of 
N<INF>2, O<INF>2, CO<INF>2 and SO<INF>2 analysis. Advice received from: 
The National Institutes of Health, March 27, 1966.
    Docket Number: 96-014. Applicant: Columbia University, Palisades, 
NY 10964. Instrument: Mass Spectrometer, Model OPTIMA. Manufacturer: 
Fisons Instruments, United Kingdom. Intended Use: See notice at 61 FR 
11614, March 21, 1996. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides: (1) A 
high sensitivity ion source yielding 1100 molecules CO<INF>2 per mass 
44 ion, (2) a universal triple collector assembly consisting of three 
Faraday collector buckets capable of N<INF>2, O<INF>2, CO<INF>2 and 
SO<INF>2 analysis and (3) a dual microinlet with automatic cold finger. 
Advice received from: The National Institutes of Health, March 28, 
1996.
    The National Institutes of Health advises in its memoranda that (1) 
the capabilities of each of the foreign instruments described above are 
pertinent to each applicant's intended purpose and (2) they know of no 
domestic instrument or apparatus of equivalent scientific value for the 
intended use of each instrument.
    We know of no other instrument or apparatus being manufactured in 
the United States which is of equivalent scientific value to either of 
the foreign instruments.
Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 96-15686 Filed 6-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 734 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 734

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 29, 2009.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States was signed on September 17, 1787, 
        by 39 delegates from 12 States;
Whereas the Constitution was subsequently ratified by each of the original 13 
        States;
Whereas the Constitution was drafted in order to form a more perfect Union, 
        establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common 
        defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of 
        liberty for the citizens of the United States;
Whereas the Constitution has provided the means and structure for this Nation 
        and its citizens that is unparalleled by any other country;
Whereas the Constitution's contributions to the welfare of the human race reach 
        far beyond the borders of the United States;
Whereas the House of Representatives continues to strive to preserve and 
        strengthen the values and rights bestowed by the Constitution upon the 
        United States and its citizens;
Whereas the Constitution is recognized by many to be the most significant and 
        important document in history for establishing freedom and justice 
        through democracy;
Whereas the Constitution deserves the recognition, respect, and reverence of all 
        people in the United States;
Whereas every person in the United States should celebrate the freedom and 
        responsibilities of the Constitution;
Whereas the preservation of such values and rights in the hearts and minds of 
        United States citizens would be advanced by official recognition of the 
        signing of the Constitution; and
Whereas September 17, 2009, is designated as ``Constitution Day'': Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) expresses support for the goals and ideals of ``Constitution 
        Day''; and
            (2) calls upon the people of the United States to observe the day 
        with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
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 

Mohamed Taha Elanfassi, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

John F Kelly, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-18-00097-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the 

Magistrate Judge recommending that this case be dismissed, without prejudice, as moot. 

(Doc. 10). No party has filed objections to the R&R. 

 Because no party has filed objections, the Court hereby accepts the R&R. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not required to 

conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection”; United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“statute makes it 

clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in 

original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003). 

 Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 10) is accepted; 

/ / / 

/ / / 
- 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 FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition in this case is dismissed, without 

prejudice, as moot and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 22nd day of May, 2018.
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

Daniel J. O’Connor, Jr., Bar No. 010081

Karen J. Stillwell, Bar No. 022711

Travis B. Hill, Bar No. 021133

O'CONNOR & DYET, P.C.

7955 South Priest Drive

Tempe, Arizona 85284

daniel.oconnor@occlaw.com

karen.stillwell@occlaw.com

travis.hill@occlaw.com

(602) 241-7000

Attorneys for Phoenix Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mussalina Muhaymin as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of 

Muhammad Abdul Muhaymin Jr.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

City of Phoenix, an Arizona Municipal

Corporation; Antonio Tarango; Officer 

Oswald Grenier; Officer Kevin 

McGowan; Officer Jason Hobe; Officer 

Ronaldo Canilao; Officer David Head; 

Officer Susan Heimbinger; Officer James 

Clark; Officer Dennis Lerous; Officer 

Ryan Nielson; Officer Steven Wong; and 

Doe Supervisors 1-5,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-04565-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

SEAL NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS 

OF ARIZ. R. PROF. COND. E.R. 4.2 & 

3.6, AND LOCAL RULE OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE 83.8 AND MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

Assigned to the 

Honorable Susan M. Brnovich

Defendants City of Phoenix, Antonio Tarango, Oswald Grenier, Kevin McGowan, 

Jason Hobel, Ronaldo Canilao, David Head, Susan Heimbigner, James Clark, Dennis 

Leroux, Ryan Nielsen and Steven Wong (collectively the “Defendants”), respectfully 

request this Court seal Defendants’ Notice of Violations of Ariz. R. Prof. Cond. E.R. 4.2 

Case 2:17-cv-04565-SMB Document 329 Filed 05/03/21 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

& 3.6 and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.8, and Motion for Sanctions, including the 

referenced exhibits. The Notice and exhibits contain documents and information that

contain confidential information and/or have been designated Confidential under this 

Court’s Protective Order entered on May 8, 2019 (Dkt. No. 072), and therefore, public 

access should not be permitted. 

Dated: May 3, 2021. 

O’CONNOR & DYET, P.C.

By: /s/ Karen J. Stillwell

Daniel J. O’Connor, Jr.

Karen J. Stillwell

Travis B. Hill

Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 3, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court for the U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, using the CM/ECF 

System. A Notice of Electronic Filing will be served to the following registered 

participants:

David A. Chami

PRICE LAW GROUP, APC 

8245 N. 85th Way

Scottsdale, AZ 85258

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Haytham Faraj

LAW OFFICES OF HAYTHAM FARAJ 

1935 W Belmont Ave. 

Chicago, IL 60657

Attorney for Plaintiff

Brian J. Theut

THEUT, THEUT & THEUT

5150 North 16th Street

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Guardian Ad Litem and Statutory 

Representative for A. M. 

By: /s/ Aly Shomar-Esparza

Case 2:17-cv-04565-SMB Document 329 Filed 05/03/21 Page 2 of 2
#### Reginald COOK, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 67695.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 21, 1995.

Raymund ,J. Capelovitch, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Kocot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL J., and WHITE, Special Judge.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
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 Bar No.1430909, admitted pro hac vice)

Erin E. McCampbell (NY Bar No. 4480166, 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

emccampbell@lglaw.com

Attorneys for 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-SMB

MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR COUNSEL 

TO APPEAR BY PHONE OR 

VIDEOCONFERENCING AT 

NOVEMBER 2, 2022 STATUS 

CONFERENCE 

NOW COMES the Defendant, Michael Lacey, by his attorney of record, to ask the Court 

to grant leave for his lawyer to appear by phone or videoconferencing at the November 2, 2022 

Status Conference as in this matter. As good cause therefore, the Defendant submits the following:

Mr. Lacey’s attorney has pre-existing in-person hearings in the Erie County, New York 

Supreme Court for November 3, 4, and 15, 2022. It is not possible to travel to and from the District 

of Arizona for the November 2, 2022 Status Conference, and also properly prepare for, and attend 

the all-day hearings scheduled to begin in Erie County, New York on November 3, 2022. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1481 Filed 10/21/22 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

Additionally, counsel is scheduled to begin a murder trial on December 8, 2022, and must 

prepare for that trial, including interviewing and preparing witnesses, and other pretrial matters that 

must be done in person, in Buffalo, New York.

Finally, because the government has seized the majority of Mr. Lacey’s assets, and the limited 

pool of assets available for trial costs was substantially depleted during the first trial in this case, assets 

necessary for travel and accomodations are in short supply and need to be preserved for the 

upcoming trial.

The Government does not object to this Motion.

The Court will find attached a proposed Order. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 21st day of October, 2022, 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr.

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

By: /s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr.

Attorneys for Michael Lacey

On October 21, 2022, 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:

Kevin Rapp, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Peter Kozinets, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov

Daniel Boyle, daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov

Margaret Perlmeter, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov 

Andrew Stone, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov

Austin Maxwell Berry, austin.berry2@usdoj.gov

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1481 Filed 10/21/22 Page 2 of 2
#### Mark Alan PETTIT, Respondent, v. Shelly June PETTIT, Appellant.

No. WD 50924.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 20, 1996.

*766Kenneth Hensley, Raymore, for appellant.

Richard McFadin, Gallatin, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Shelly Pettit appeals the denial of her motion to modify the child custody provisions of a decree of dissolution entered in August 1993. She contends that the trial court’s finding insufficient “changed circumstances” to warrant a transfer of custody was against the weight of the evidence. We affirm. Discerning no jurisprudential value in publishing an opinion, we issue this summary order. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CEO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
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 report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    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;d)
    
    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;
and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  By:
    
    /s/ Alan Stock

Alan Stock
Chief Executive Officer
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





The
undersigned, Bernard Chan, the Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board of
Directors and Treasurer of ASIA DOCUMENT TRANSITION, INC. (the “Company”), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.  The Company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for thequarter endedDecember 31, 2010
(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.  Information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operation of the
Company.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this11thday ofFebruary, 2010.





/s/ Bernard ChanBernard ChanChief Executive Officer and Principal Financial
      Officer





A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ASIA
DOCUMENT TRANSITION, INC. and will be retained by ASIA DOCUMENT TRANSITION, INC.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 121 (Friday, June 21, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 32023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15912]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Summary Notice No. PE-26-29]


Petitions for Exemption; Summary of Petitions Received; 
Dispositions of Petitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Dot.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for exemption received and of dispositions 
of prior petitions.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the 
application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption (14 
CFR Part 11), this notice contains a summary of certain petitions 
seeking relief from specified requirements of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations (14 CFR Chapter I), dispositions of certain petitions 
previously received, and corrections. The purpose of this notice is to 
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of 
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the 
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to 
affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.

DATE: Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket 
number involved and must be received on or before July 11, 1996.

ADDRESS: Send comments on any petition in triplicate to: Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attn: Rule Docket 
(AGC-200), Petition Docket No. ______, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, D.C. 20591.
    Comments may also be sent electronically to the following internet 
address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83edf3f1eee0eef7f0c3eee2eaefadebf2ade5e2e2ade4ecf5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d6b8a6a4bbb5bba2a596bbb7bfbaf8bea7f8b0b7b7f8b1b9a0">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The petition, any comments received, and a copy of any final 
disposition are filed in the assigned regulatory docket and are 
available for examination in the Rules Docket (AGC-200), Room 915G, FAA 
Headquarters Building (FOB 10A), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, D.C. 20591; telephone (202) 267-3132.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. D. Michael Smith, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone (202) 267-7470.
    This notice is published pursuant to paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) 
of Sec. 11.27 of Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 
Part 11).

    Issued in Washington, D.C., on June 18, 1996.
Donald P. Byrne,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. 96-15912 Filed 6-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>