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 

Millennium Commerce LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Equinox Payments LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-00200-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 Upon review of the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 

38), and good cause appearing, 

 IT IS ORDERED granting the Stipulation (Doc. 38). The above-entitled matter is 

hereby dismissed with prejudice, the parties to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending hearings, including the July 23, 

2018 Scheduling Conference, and any pending motions are deemed moot. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to close this matter. 

 Dated this 18th day of July, 2018. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:18-cv-00200-JJT Document 39 Filed 07/18/18 Page 1 of 1
|    |                                                                                         |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this amendment no. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of ATMI, Inc.; |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; |

|                                                             |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                             |
| /s/ David M. Ward                                           |
| David M. Ward                                               |
| Vice President, Controller and Principal Accounting Officer |
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. 

Marco Antonio De La Garza, Jr., 

 Defendant. 

CR 18-353-TUC-RCC (BGM) 

O R D E R 

CONTINUING PLEA DEADLINE 

AND TRIAL 

 

 This case is presently set for trial on November 6, 2018. The Defendant filed 

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

to adequately prepare for trial. The Government 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 Defendant is 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 November 21, 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-00353-RCC-BGM Document 31 Filed 10/16/18 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 December 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 

November 7, 2018 and end on December 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, November 26, 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 16th day of October, 2018. 

Case 4:18-cr-00353-RCC-BGM Document 31 Filed 10/16/18 Page 2 of 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 2150** 
RICHARD NEELY, individually; NEELY & CALLAGHAN, a West Virginia Partnership , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,
v. MARK ZIMMER, individually and as Trustee of the Zimmer Survivor Trust; and as Executor of the Estate of Norma Zimmer; RONALD ZIMMER, individually; THE ZIMMER SURVIVOR TRUST, a California Trust , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Charleston
. Joseph R. Goodwin , District Judge. ( 2:11

- cv - 00444 )

Submitted : September 5, 2013 Decided: October 31, 2013

Before SHEDD and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Richard F. Neely, NEELY & CALLAGHAN, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Robert E. Adel, GREENBERG TRAURIG, Irvine, California; Grant P. H. Shuman, SPILMAN, THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2

- PER CURIAM: In this case involving an attorney

- fee dispute, Richard Neely and Neely and Callaghan, a West Virginia partnership, appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Ma rk Zimmer, individually, as trustee of the Zimmer Survivor Trust, and as executor of the estate of Norma Zimmer; Ronald Zimmer, individually; and the Zimmer Survivor Trust , a California trust . Richard Neely and the partnership of Neely and Callaghan also appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. Having carefully reviewed the briefs, the record, and the relevant law, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Neely v. Zimmer , No. 2:11

- cv - 00444, (S.D.W.Va. Sept. 10, 2012) (denial of Rule 59(e) motion); Neely v. Zimmer , No. 2:11

- cv 00444, 201 2 WL 3198557 (S.D.W.Va. August 2, 2012) (grant of summary judgment). 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 the decisional process.
AFFIRM ED
#### Hillside Cemetery Assn. *v.*Board of Park Commrs. of The Cleveland Metropolitan Park District et al.

(No. 23160

Decided October 28, 1931.)

*Mr. Arthur Van Epps*and *Messrs. Farnsworth $ Farnsworth,*for plaintiff in error.

*664
      *Messrs. Locker, Green & Woods,*for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and tbe same is hereby, dismissed for tbe reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.
| Name of Subsidiary                |   | Juridiction of Incorporation |
|-----------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|
|                              |   |                         |
| EDAP TMS France  S.A.S. |   | France                       |
| EDAP Technomed S.r.l.             |   | Italy                        |
| EDAP Technomed, Inc.              |   | United States                |
| EDAP Technomed Co. Ltd.           |   | Japan                        |
| EDAP Technomed Sdn Bhd            |   | Malaysia                     |
| EDAP TMS GmbH                     |   | Germany                      |
#### Mark SHIPLEY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. MISSOURI MEERSCHAM COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 67284.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Nov. 14, 1995.

Richard B. Dempsey, Washington, for appellant.

Donald L. James, Joseph R. Swift, T. Michael Ward, John P. Rahoy, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark Shipley appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Missouri Meerschaum Company on his employment discrimination claim against Missouri Meerschaum Company. We affirm. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence; an extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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).
FRANCEKY LAPLANTE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1796

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 22, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.

Paul S. Bryan, Judge.

Franceky LaPlante, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael McDermott, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., WOLF and ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Mitchell D. GARRISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 41401.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 6, 1990.

*918William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before NUGENT, C.J., and CLARK and FENNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion for post-eonviction relief after an evidentia-ry hearing.

Judgment affirmed. 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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this matter on March 21, 2018 (Doc. 1). Proof of 

service was filed on April 3, 2018 (Doc. 8), declaring that service on Defendant was 

effected on March 30, 2018. To date, no answer has been filed and Plaintiff has taken no 

action in this matter1

. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff must show cause in writing why this action 

should not be dismissed in its entirety for failure to prosecute no later than May 4, 2018, 

unless an answer is filed within such time. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

 1

 As previously advised in the Preliminary Order, the Court reminds that with limited exceptions, the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project (MIDP) “requires that parties must file answers, counterclaims, crossclaims, and replies within the time set forth 

in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, irrespective of whether any party has filed or intends to file a motion to dismiss or other preliminary motion.” (Doc. 6.) 

Fernando Gastelum, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Tempe Hotel Properties, LLC, 

Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-18-00900-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:18-cv-00900-SPL Document 9 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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on 

Defendant. 

 Dated this 27th day of April, 2018.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:18-cv-00900-SPL Document 9 Filed 04/27/18 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Dan Motsinger, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Atlas Oil and Gas, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Atlas Oil and Gas, Inc.



|       |                            
|------ | ---------------------------
|By:    | /s/ DAN MOTSINGER          
|Name:  | Dan Motsinger              
|Title: | Chief Executive Officer and
|       | Chief Financial Officer    
|Dated: | August 14, 2009
#### John and Darlene LIPTAK, Respondents, v. Mary NEWMAN, Appellant.

No. WD 41727.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 16, 1990.

Lloyd Koelker, Kansas City, for appellant.

Michael C. Harris, Independence, for respondents.

Before BERREY, P.J., and TURNAGE and ULRICH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from a judgment on appellant’s claims for breach of contract and conversion.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Tim BAKER, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 18414.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

May 18, 1993.

Raymond L. Legg, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for movant-ap-pellant.

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

PARRISH, Chief Judge.

Tim Baker (movant) appeals from an order denying his Rule 24.035 motion. The motion was directed to criminal convictions and sentences for assault in the first degree, § 565.050,1 a class A felony2 (Count I), and armed criminal action, § 571.015, a class A felony (Count II). Movant was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment on Count I and three years on Count II. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively-

Movant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in his underlying criminal case. He contends that his pleas of guilty were involuntary because they were “based upon an unfulfilled promise regarding the length of time he would be incarcerated.” He argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in that the trial counsel misrepresented “that the [trial] court could grant [movant] credit for ... time ... served on bond awaiting trial.”

The grounds upon which movant now asserts ineffective assistance of trial counsel were not included in his pro se Rule 24.035 motion or his amended motion. “A point raised on appeal [from an order denying a Rule 24.035 motion] can be considered only to the extent that it was raised in the post-conviction motion before the trial court. It cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” *Mevius v. State,*789 S.W.2d 888, 892 (Mo.App.1990). The point is denied.3 The order denying movant’s Rule 24.035 motion is affirmed.

CROW, P.J., and SHRUM, J., concur.

1

. References to statutes are to RSMo 1986.

2

. The charge was a class A felony because it alleged that movant inflicted serious physical injury on the victim. § 565.050.2.

3

. The issue presented before the motion court was a claim that movant had been promised probation. This court has gratuitously reviewed the record on appeal and finds that the motion *867court’s determination that ”[t]he evidence clearly refutes movant’s claim that he was promised probation if he entered a plea of guilty” was not clearly erroneous.
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 

Fernando Gastelum, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Tempe Town Lake Inn LLC, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-18-00697-PHX-DLR 

ORDER 

 The Court has reviewed the parties’ Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice. (Doc. 

26.) For good cause shown, 

IT IS ORDERED that this action and all claims the parties asserted against one 

another are dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and 

costs. 

 Dated this 28th day of September, 2018. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:18-cv-00697-DLR Document 27 Filed 09/28/18 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Meg A. Gentle, Chief Financial Officer of Cheniere Energy Partners GP, LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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 Partnership.





/s/    Meg A. GentleMeg A. GentleChief Financial Officer of Cheniere Energy Partners GP, LLC, general partner of Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.





Date: May 6, 2011
**EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

     **18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NORTHWEST CHARIOTS INCORPORATED (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Barbara Ceretzke, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: February 13, 2009

By: */s/ Barbara Ceretzke*

Barbara Ceretzke

Chief Financial Officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer

----
EXHIBIT F 

Case 2:18-cv-00582-DJH Document 1-7 Filed 02/21/18 Page 1 of 5
Orchid: It's Your Internet... 2/16/18, 7)00 PM

http://sale-orchid.com/ Page 1 of 4

PRE-SALE IS LIVE NOW! PRE-SALE IS LIVE NOW!

*Minimum contribution - 0.2 ETH.

28800 / 40000 ETH (72%)

CONTRIBUTE NOW

0xAF53B671697fcD1a80dcB7798aeDe2173AacbFe2 0xAF53B671697fcD1a80dcB7798aeDe2173AacbFe2

THE ORCHID PROTOCOL. THE ORCHID PROTOCOL.

OUR MISSION WHY

Case 2:18-cv-00582-DJH Document 1-7 Filed 02/21/18 Page 2 of 5
Orchid: It's Your Internet... 2/16/18, 7)00 PM

http://sale-orchid.com/ Page 2 of 4

OUR MISSION

The Internet was invented for everyone. An open platform to

access information, collaborate, and communicate freely across

borders. Unfortunately, it’s no longer a place of true openness

and freedom. But, we can change that. We’ve created an opensource protocol with a token-based bandwidth exchange to

protect everyone around the world from censorship and

surveillance.

WHY

Internet access for over 75% of the global population is

restricted or censored. ISPs worldwide harvest and sell users’

data to the highest bidder. Orchid is a new surveillance-free

layer on top of the existing Internet, allowing users to bypass

firewalls, access information, and communicate freely. Join us

and help create a truly independent, censorship-free Internet.

SURVEILLANCE FREE. SURVEILLANCE FREE.

ALL THE RIGHT PARTS

Orchid combines its protocol with surplus bandwidth, state-of-the artencryption, and a decentralized infrastructure to bring users surveillancefree access to the existing Internet. Because everyone is surveilled and

bandwidth is ubiquitous, Orchid users can exchange bandwidth in peer-topeer transactions using Orchid tokens on the Ethereum blockchain.

! WHITE PAPER WHITE PAPER

! PRESS KIT PRESS KIT

Case 2:18-cv-00582-DJH Document 1-7 Filed 02/21/18 Page 3 of 5
Orchid: It's Your Internet... 2/16/18, 7)00 PM

http://sale-orchid.com/ Page 3 of 4

SUPPORTED BY SUPPORTED BY

FAQS

ABOUT ORCHID

▶ What is Orchid?

▶ What is the purpose of Orchid?

▶ How does it work?

▶ When will it go live?

▶ Who are the investors?

ON TECHNOLOGY ON TECHNOLOGY

▶ How do you know it works?

▶ Can't NSA just hack into this too?

▶ Who has validated it?

▶ How will you get users?

▶ What is the future for this project?

▶ How does the token work?

▶ How does Orchid distinguish itself from VPNs?

ON CHINA/FREE SPEECH

▶ How does the Orchid Protocol break through the Great

Firewall of China?

▶ How will you stop the Chinese government from banning

this?

▶ How do you attract users in China and other places

where internet access is already limited?

▶ Do you see a large demand for the Orchid protocol

outside of China?

Case 2:18-cv-00582-DJH Document 1-7 Filed 02/21/18 Page 4 of 5
Orchid: It's Your Internet... 2/16/18, 7)00 PM

http://sale-orchid.com/ Page 4 of 4

Case 2:18-cv-00582-DJH Document 1-7 Filed 02/21/18 Page 5 of 5