alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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, Mark Hammer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Release Your Lease Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

|               | (i)    | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2007 (the “Quarterly Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|     |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|               | (ii)   | the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                               |

|   | By:    | */s/ Mark Hammer*           |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------|
|   |   |                        |
|   | Name:  | Mark Hammer                 |
|   |   |                        |
|   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer     |
|   |   |                        |
|   | Date:  | March 16, 2007              |

----
----

|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      February 22, 2010 | By:    | /s/      Robert Kite                                                                                                    |
|------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |   | Robert      Kite                                                                                                        |
|                         |   | Chairman,      President and Chief Executive Officer(Principle      Executive Officer and Principal Financial  Officer) |

----
#### The STATE of Texas, Appellant v. Gregory CASTLE, Appellee.

No. 01-95-00604-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

Jan. 25, 1996.

Rehearing Overruled Feb. 1, 1996.

Discretionary Review Refused April 10, 1996.

Sam Maida, Houston, for Appellant.

*656John B. Holmes, District Attorney and Calvin Hartmann, Assistant District Attorney, for Appellee.

Before OLIVER-PARROTT, C.J., and O’CONNOR and TAFT, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the State from an allegedly illegal sentence. The State has filed a motion for extension to file the transcript.

This Court issued an order concluding that the transcript did not appear to be timely filed and gave the State 10 days to file a response showing that it was. The State has filed a response.

The State contends that Tex.R.App.P. 54(b) does not restrict this Court’s authority to consider a late transcript as its civil counterpart, rule 54(a), does. The State is correct that the wording of the subsections differs. Rule 54(a) contains the following language, which rule 54(b) does not.

> The court has authority to consider all timely filed transcripts and statements of facts, but shall have no authority to consider a late filed transcript or statement of facts, except as permitted by this rule.

The exception referred to is rule 54(c), which requires a motion for extension to file the transcript to be filed not later than 15 days after the last day for filing the record.

While rule 54(b) does not expressly limit this Court’s authority to consider a late filed transcript, Tex.R.AppP. 83 does.

> A judgment shall not be affirmed or reversed or an appeal dismissed for defects or irregularities, in appellate procedure, either of form or substance, without allowing a reasonable time to correct or amend such defects or irregularities *provided the court may make no enlargement of the time for filing the transcript and statement of facts except pursuant to paragraph (c) of Rule 54....*

(Emphasis added.) The rule then provides an exception for appellants in criminal cases who can show ineffective assistance of counsel if a late transcript or statement of facts is not considered.1 Thus, the omission in rule 54(b) of the language expressly limiting this Court’s authority to consider a late filed transcript and statement of facts can be attributed to the exception made for appellants in criminal cases allowing an appellate court to consider a late record when the requirements of rule 54(c) have not been met.

Because the State has not shown that it filed a timely motion for extension pursuant to rule 54(c), we deny the motion for extension. Because we have no transcript, we have nothing to review, and we dismiss the appeal.

1

. In our previous order, we determined that this exception is not applicable to the State.
#### Stephen A. YUSSMAN, Petitioner, v. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

No. 93-SC-222-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Jan. 19, 1995.

ORDER

Petitioner, Stephen A. Yussman, has applied for reinstatement to the Kentucky Bar Association, following a resignation from that association for a period of five years, effective February 27, 1986.

Yussman’s application for reinstatement was filed with the Kentucky Bar Association on March 31, 1993. This application has been considered in accordance with the procedure set forth by SCR 3.510. The applicant originally resigned from the Kentucky Bar Association after it was discovered that he had mishandled escrow funds in several estate matters. The applicant has not practiced law since his resignation, has completed the CLE requirements necessary for reinstatement, and has expressed remorse concerning the incidents.

The Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association heard oral argument to consider reinstatement. The Board voted 16 to 0 to make a recommendation to reinstate Yussman to the practice of law. Upon consideration of the Board of Governors’ recom*819mendation, this Court orders that the applicant, Stephen A. Yussman, be reinstated to the practice of law. Yussman is also ordered to pay the costs of this action, $803.76.

All concur.

ENTERED: January 19, 1994.

/s/ Robert F. Stephens

Chief Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,907
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,011
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         45
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,326
<PP&E>                                         223,850
<DEPRECIATION>                                 142,263
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  93,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          124,598
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (71,313)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    93,508
<SALES>                                         31,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,909
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,517
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,488)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (29,488)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (29,488)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2






CERTIFICATION OF


CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF


GREENLIGHT CAPITAL RE, LTD.






This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the ‘‘Form 10-Q’’) for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 of Greenlight Capital Re, Ltd. (the ‘‘Issuer’’).




I, Tim Courtis, the Principal Financial Officer of the Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:




1. The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and




2. The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.






Dated: August 2, 2010

/s/ Tim CourtisTim Courtis
#### MARK TWAIN BANK et al., Plaintiffs/Respondent, v. Boaz RAFAELI, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 69565.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

July 23, 1996.

*542Boaz Rafaeli, Clayton, pro se.

Albert S. Watkins, Richard B. Hein, Kod-ner, Watkins, Muchnick & Dunne, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before CRANE, C.J., AHRENS, J., and WILLIAM E. TURNAGE, Senior Judge.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Boaz Rafaeli, appeals the trial court’s judgment, striking defendant’s pleadings as sanctions imposed for defendant’s failure to appear for deposition. Defendant argues the court abused its discretion in ordering sanctions against him when plaintiffs had also failed to comply with defendant’s first interrogatories and request for production of documents and things, which were submitted before plaintiffs filed notice of defendant’s deposition. Our review of the . record reveals the trial court did not abuse its discretion and acted within the powers granted it by Rule 61.01(f) when it struck defendant’s pleadings. We also find no abuse of discretion in the denial of defendant’s motion to compel answers to interrogatories and production of documents and things.

A written opinion would have no prece-dential value and would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b). Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Appeal or in the Alternative to Strike Appellant’s Reply Brief is denied as being moot.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 GLOBE SPECIALTY METALS, INC.
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the registrant);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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 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.
    
    [paragraph omitted in accordance with Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a)];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; andd.
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal controls over
financial reporting that occurred during the 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
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls 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.
 Date: February 16, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Malcolm AppelbaumMalcolm AppelbaumChief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 31165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15549]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-31,718]


Controlled Power Corporation, Canton, Ohio; Notice of Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By letter of April 17, 1996, the petitioners requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance for workers of the subject firm. The denial 
notice was signed on March 20, 1996 and published in the Federal 
Register on April 3, 1996 (61 FR 14820).
    The petitioner presents evidence that the Department's survey of 
the subject firm's customers was incomplete.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of 
Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of May 1996.
Linda Poole,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-15549 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 942 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 942

 Commending the Real Salt Lake soccer club for winning the 2009 Major 
                           League Soccer Cup.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 2, 2009

   Mr. Matheson (for himself, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Arcuri, Mr. Baca, Mr. 
    Baird, Mr. Barrow, Ms. Bean, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Boren, Mr. 
    Boswell, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Chandler, Mr. 
Childers, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Costa, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Davis of 
Tennessee, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Donnelly of Indiana, 
 Mr. Doyle, Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Gordon of 
Tennessee, Mr. Griffith, Ms. Herseth Sandlin, Mr. Hill, Mr. Hodes, Mr. 
 Holden, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Israel, Mr. Kind, Mr. Kratovil, Mr. Larsen of 
 Washington, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Melancon, Mr. Michaud, Mr. 
 Minnick, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of 
 Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy of New York, Mr. Nye, Mr. Ross, Mr. Salazar, 
Mr. Schiff, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Shuler, Mr. Smith of Washington, 
     Mr. Space, Mr. Tanner, and Mr. Upton) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Commending the Real Salt Lake soccer club for winning the 2009 Major 
                           League Soccer Cup.

Whereas the Real Salt Lake soccer club won the 2009 Major League Soccer Cup, 
        defeating the Los Angeles Galaxy at Qwest Field in Seattle, Washington 
        on November 22, 2009;
Whereas Real Salt Lake played through 2 sudden-death overtimes and a penalty-
        kick shootout to defeat the Galaxy;
Whereas forward Robbie Findlay scored a goal in the second half to tie the game 
        and force an overtime period;
Whereas defender Robbie Russell scored the decisive fifth goal in the seventh 
        round of the shootout to win the game;
Whereas goalkeeper Nick Rimando blocked 4 shots, including 2 in the shootout, 
        and was named the Most Valuable Player of the game;
Whereas head coach Jason Kreis is the youngest coach to win a Major League 
        Soccer Cup, and coached Real Salt Lake to its second post-season 
        appearance since joining the team in 2007; and
Whereas Real Salt Lake defeated the top 2 seeds in the Eastern Conference, the 
        first-seeded Columbus Crew and the second-seeded Chicago Fire, to reach 
        the championship game: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) commends the Real Salt Lake soccer club for winning the 
        2009 Major League Soccer Cup; and
            (2) congratulates Real Salt Lake for winning the first 
        Major League Soccer Cup in the franchise's history.
                                 <all>
```
WO

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 Arizona Medical Billing, Inc. (“AMB”), filed suit against several 

defendants, including FSIX LLC, alleging that the defendants violated the Federal False 

Claims Act and Medicare’s mileage reimbursement policies, among other causes of action. 

(Doc. 1) The Defendants moved for contempt sanctions against the Plaintiff (Doc. 50), 

and the Court granted the motion on September 9, 2019. (Doc. 54) The Plaintiff filed a 

motion for reconsideration (the “Motion”) on September 18, 2019. (Doc. 55) For the 

reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied. 

Reconsideration is disfavored and “appropriate only in rare circumstances.”

WildEarth Guardians v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 283 F.Supp.3d 783, 795 n.11 (D. 

Ariz. June 21, 2017); see also Bergdale v. Countrywide Bank FSB, No. CV-12-8057-PCTSMM, 2014 WL 12643162, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 23, 2014) (“[Reconsideration] motions 

should not be used for the purpose of asking a court to rethink what the court had already 

thought through-rightly or wrongly.”) A motion for reconsideration will be granted only 

where the Court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear 

Arizona Medical Billing Incorporated,

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

FSIX LLC, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-17-04742-PHX-SPL

ORDER
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

error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change 

in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 

1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

In the Motion, the Plaintiff requests for the Court to reconsider its prior Order (Doc. 

54). (Doc. 55 at 1) The Plaintiff does not direct the Court to any newly discovered evidence 

or precedent demonstrating an error or intervening change in controlling law. The Plaintiff 

failed to respond to the Defendants’ motion for contempt sanctions, and the Plaintiff cannot 

now seek to correct its failures through an improper motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 54 

at 1)

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 55) is denied. 

Dated this 17th day of December, 2019.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge
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

Curtis M. Chipman - #018273

cmc@udallshumway.com

Stephen L. West - #011764

slw@udallshumway.com

David R. Schwartz - #009264

das@udallshumway.com

Attorney for Personal Representative

ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT

MARICOPA COUNTY

In the Matter of the Estate of:

NORMAN LEE BUTLER,

Deceased. 

NO. PB 2018-090686

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON

PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF 

CLAIM AGAINST ESTATE OF 

NORMAN LEE BUTLER

(Assigned to Commissioner Susan White)

Upon stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED vacating the First Appearance hearing scheduled for 

March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. on the Petition for Allowance of Claim Against the Estate and 

rescheduling such hearing for April _____, 2019 at _______________ __.m before 

Commissioner Susan White, Maricopa County Superior Court, Southeast Judicial Facility, 

222 E. Javelina Ave, Courtroom 302 (3rd Floor), Mesa, Arizona 85210. 

. . .

. . .

1138 NORTH ALMA SCHOOL ROAD, SUITE 101

MESA, ARIZONA 85201

Telephone: 480.461.5300 | Fax: 480.833.9392

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 54-1 Filed 03/06/19 Page 1 of 3
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

Any written objection describing the legal basis for the objection to the Petition must 

be filed with the Court at least three days before this hearing date or you must appear in 

person or through an attorney at the time and place set forth in this Order.

DATED: March , 2019.

Commissioner Susan White

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 54-1 Filed 03/06/19 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

COPY hand delivered this

5th day of March, 2019 to:

The Honorable Susan White

Maricopa County Superior Court

With a copy e-mailed and mailed to:

Charles M. Dyer

Richard C. Keyt

Dyer Bregman & Ferris, LLC

3411 N. 5th Avenue, Suite 300

Phoenix, AZ 85013-3811

Attorneys for Robin Prentice-Bjerkeseth

5412443.1/116548.001

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 54-1 Filed 03/06/19 Page 3 of 3