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 

New Enterprises Limited, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SenesTech Incorporated and Roth Capital 

Partners LLC, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-08033-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 This case was transferred to the undersigned approximately two months after it 

was filed. At that time, the Court noted that the civil cover sheet stated that this Court’s 

jurisdiction is based on a federal question. (Doc. 1-1). However, upon closer review of 

the complaint, the Court discovered that jurisdiction is claimed to exist based solely on 

diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1 at 3). “Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction 

is a federal judge’s first duty in every case.” Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign 

Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th Cir. 2003). 

 Here, the complaint fails to plead diversity jurisdiction. First, Plaintiff, which is a 

Trust (see Doc. 1 at 2) fails to properly plead the citizenship of a trust. Compare Navarro 

Savings Assoc. v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 465-66 (1980) with Americold Realty Trust v. 

Conagra Foods, Inc., 136 S.Ct. 1012, 1016-17 (2016). Thus, Plaintiff must clarify 

whether it is the type of trust discussed in Navarro versus Americold and then properly 

allege citizenship accordingly. Second, Plaintiff fails to properly allege the citizenship of 

Roth Capital Partners, LLC. See Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, L.P., 437 
- 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 

F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that a limited liability company takes on the 

citizenship of each of its members). 

 Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to establish that federal subject matter jurisdiction 

exists in this court. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff must show cause why this case should not be 

dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. To satisfy this show cause, 

Plaintiff must file a supplement to the complaint by June 15, 2018 establishing federal 

subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be dismissed without prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael DiGiacomo must amend the civil 

cover sheet to be consistent with the complaint. 

 Dated this 7th day of June, 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

27

28

GLENN B. McCORMICK

Acting United States Attorney District of Arizona

KEVIN M. RAPP (Ariz. Bar No. 014249, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov) MARGARET PERLMETER (Ariz. Bar No. 024805, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov) PETER S. KOZINETS (Ariz. Bar No. 019856, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov) ANDREW C. STONE (Ariz. Bar No. 026543, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov) Assistant U.S. Attorneys

40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408

Telephone (602) 514-7500

DAN G. BOYLE (N.Y. Bar No. 5216825, daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov) Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

312 N. Spring Street, Suite 1400

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Telephone (213) 894-2426

KENNETH POLITE

Assistant Attorney General 

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

REGINALD E. JONES (D.C. Bar No. 1620183, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov) Senior Trial Attorney

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 1400 New York Ave N.W., Suite 1200

Washington, D.C. 20005

Telephone (202) 616-2807 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CR-18-422-PHX-DJH 

UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO 

UNSEAL FOR LIMITED PURPOSE

The United States moves this Court for an order unsealing the transcript of the 

motion hearing held on May 3, 2021, for the limited purpose of allowing the transcript to 

be released to the United States. Previously, the United States filed a transcript request for 

the oral argument on that date. (Doc. 1153.) Those particular proceedings, however, were 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1381 Filed 11/05/21 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

27

28

under seal. Accordingly, the United States now moves to unseal the proceedings for 

transcription purposes only. The United States also submits a proposed form of order.

Respectfully submitted this 5th day of November, 2021.

GLENN B. McCORMICK

Acting United States Attorney

District of Arizona

s/ Andrew C. Stone

KEVIN M. RAPP

MARGARET PERLMETER

PETER S. KOZINETS

ANDREW C. STONE

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

DAN G. BOYLE

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

KENNETH POLITE

Assistant Attorney General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

REGINALD E. JONES

Senior Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this same date, I electronically transmitted the attached 

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a 

Notice of Electronic Filing to the CM/ECF registrants who have entered their appearance 

as counsel of record.

s/ Marjorie Dieckman U.S. Attorney’s Office

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1381 Filed 11/05/21 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 

A

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1258-1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1258-1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1258-1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 10.1

2010 Executive Bonus Plan

NeurogesX Executive Bonus Plan  2010

ELIGIBILITY

All Full-Time Regular and Part-Time Regular (minimum 30 hours per week during the Bonus Plan period) Executives hired prior to
October 1, 2010 except for those Executives eligible under a separate incentive based compensation plan such as the Incentive Compensation Plan. Executives hired between January 1, 2010 and September 30, 2010 will be eligible for a
pro-rated bonus based on the percentage of the year worked. Individuals must be a current active employee at the time of payout in order to be eligible for any payment. Any accrued bonus amounts at December 31, 2010 forfeited by individuals due
to termination prior to payout will be re-allocated to remaining participants on a pro rata basis.

BONUS POOL

The total amount to be paid to all employees NeurogesX Executive Bonus Plan 2010 will be determined at the sole discretion of
the Board of Directors (the Board) at the first meeting of the Board in 2011, as recommended by the Compensation Committee.

COMPONENTS

The Executive Bonus will be based entirely (100%) on Corporate Performance and Individual Performance.

1. Corporate Performance: Payment of any bonus will be dependent on the accomplishment of the major corporate
Milestones as determined by the Board. Milestones shall be weighted as determined by the Board.

NOTE: Failure
to accomplish each of the Milestones could result in no bonus payment under this plan for 2010 or may result in a reduced bonus allocation. It will be at the sole discretion of the Board to determine whether any or all of the bonus is to be paid.

TIMING OF PAYOUT

The Bonus plan will be paid as soon as practical in the following year after the Board has determined the bonus pool. Individuals must be
a current active employee at the time of payout in order to be eligible for any bonus payment. Individuals not employed by NeurogesX at the time of the bonus payout will not be eligible or entitled to any in full or pro rata bonus payment. Any
accrued bonus amounts at December 31, 2010 forfeited by individuals due to termination prior to payout will be re-allocated to remaining participants on a pro rata basis.



---

MAXIMUM PAYOUT

The maximum payout will be established each year for that plan year. For 2010 the maximum bonus payout (100% of both the Corporate and
Individual Performance components) will be as follows:



|                                           |  |              
|------------------------------------------ |  | -------------
|LEVEL                                      |  | BONUS        
|CEO                                        |  | 50% of Salary
|EVP                                        |  | 35% of Salary
|Sr. VP (reporting directly to the CEO)     |  | 30% of Salary
|Sr. VP (not reporting directly to the CEO) |  | 25% of Salary
|VP (not reporting directly to the CEO)     |  | 20% of Salary
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

The Court, having become aware of Defendant Larkin’s passing, will nonetheless 

expect the parties to prepare for trial to commence on the current scheduled date. 

IT IS ORDERED that counsel shall meet and confer on one or two additional voir 

dire questions related to the jury panel’s awareness of recent events to probe whether they 

have heard of anything related to the impending trial and if so, whether it will impact their 

ability to be a fair and/or impartial juror. The parties shall submit that question(s) to the 

Court by 10:00 a.m. on August 4, 2023. 

Dated this 2nd day of August, 2023.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1654 Filed 08/02/23 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 20-F OF GALILEO TECHNOLOGIES
LTD. FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          45,607
<SECURITIES>                                    40,838
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,414
<ALLOWANCES>                                       207
<INVENTORY>                                      2,851
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,248
<PP&E>                                           7,823
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,007
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 102,921
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,803
<BONDS>                                              6
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,697
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,102
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   102,921
<SALES>                                         51,643
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,643
<CGS>                                           19,272
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,272
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,656
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    50 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  15 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,210 
<INCOME-TAX>                                       760 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,450
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,450
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.73
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID PATTERSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 136 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2nd day of October, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
**Exhibit
        32.2**
  Certification
        of 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 Annual Report of RCN Corporation (the “Company”) on Form
        10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof, respectively (the “Report”), Michael T.
        Sicoli, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
        hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
        to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge,
        that:
  (1)
              The
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the
                  Company.
   /s/
                    MICHAEL T. SICOLIMichael
                    T. SicoliMarch
                    15, 2007
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. David R. PROFITT, Appellant. David R. PROFITT, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 40568.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 17, 1990.

Jeanene Moenckmeier, St. Louis, for appellant.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cole County; Byron L. Kinder, Judge.

*930William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before MANFORD, P.J., and KENNEDY and ULRICH, JJ.

Direct appeal from a jury conviction for offering violence to a correctional officer, in violation of § 217.385, RSMo 1986.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Direct appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief sought pursuant to Rule 29.-15.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
|   | i.  | The      Annual Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period  ended      March 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange      Act of 1934, as amended; and  |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | ii. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company.                                                                                                                         |

| Date:  | May      14, 2010                                                                              |   | By: | /s/      ROBERT MCNULTY |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----|-------------------------|
|   | Name:  Robert      McNultyTitle:    Chief      Executive Officer |

----
August 29, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GRACE INTEREST, LLC, CYPRESSWOOD LAND PAR TNERS I, STEPHEN

A. MORROW AND SANDRA J. MORROW , Appellant s
NO. 14

- 12

- 00557

- CV V.

WALLIS STATE BANK , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appe llee, Wallis State Bank, signed March 15, 2012, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant s , Grace Interest, LLC, Cypresswood Land Partners I, Stephen A. Morrow and Sandra J. Morrow, jointly and severally, to pay all co sts incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                SAVWATT USA, INC.
                             A Delaware Corporation
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  this  amended   Quarterly  Report  of  SavWatt  USA,  Inc.
("Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Isaac
H. Sutton, President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, 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 Company.


Dated: January 28, 2011                    /s/  Isaac H. Sutton
                                           -------------------------------------
                                      By:  Isaac H. Sutton
                                      Its: President and Chief Financial Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
                                           (Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6098

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DONALD WADE SAWYERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-95-270, CA-98-208-1)

Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 22, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Wade Sawyers, Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Wade Sawyers appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See United States v. Sawyers, Nos. CR-95-

270; CA-98-208-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 29, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
#### Jorge A. MONCIVAIZ, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 901-88.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Oct. 25, 1989.

Peter C. Gilman, Brownsville, for appellant.

Robert Huttash, State’s Atty. and Alfred Walker, First Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING AFTER PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW REFUSED

CLINTON, Judge.

This is a conviction for burglary of a habitation in proceedings under Article 42.-12, § 3d, V.A.C.C.P.

On direct appeal appellant contended the trial court accepted his guilty plea in violation of Article 1.13, V.A.C.C.P., in that the attorney representing the State failed to reduce to writing and sign its consent and approval of appellant’s waiving his right to trial by jury. A divided appellate court agreed and reversed the judgment of conviction. *Moncivaiz v. State,*752 S.W.2d 722 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1988).

Through its district attorney the State sought discretionary review, asserting that application of Tex.R.App.Pro. Rule 81(b)(2) would render the “error” harmless, but the Court refused its petition. The State Prosecuting Attorney filed a motion for rehearing again urging that we apply the harmless error rule. Thereafter the Court decided in *Shaffer v. State,*769 S.W.2d 943 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), that situation does not present “error” against an accused, *viz:*

> “We now hold the State’s failure to give written consent to defendant’s jury waiver, in violation of Art. 1.13, does not constitute error as to a defendant or from which a defendant may complain. Consequently, the harm analysis of Rule 81(b)(2), Tex.R.App.Pro., is not necessary in this case.”

*Id.,*at 945. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the cause to that court for further *867proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
exv10w52






Exhibit 10.52




EXTERRAN HOLDINGS, INC. AWARD NOTICE

TIME-VESTED RESTRICTED STOCK




FIRST AMENDMENT




          THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE EXTERRAN HOLDINGS, INC. AWARD NOTICE FOR TIME-VESTED RESTRICTED
STOCK (the “Amendment”) is entered into by and between Exterran Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), and Stephen A. Snider (the “Participant”).




W I T N E S S E T H:




          WHEREAS, the Company previously granted to the Participant, on March 4, 2008, 20,060 shares of
restricted stock of the Company under the Exterran Holdings, Inc. Amended and Restated 2007 Stock
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), pursuant to the terms and conditions of an Award Notice for
Time-Vested Restricted Stock (the “Award Notice”) and the Plan; and




          WHEREAS, subject to the consent of the Participant, the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors of the Company (the “Committee”) may, in its sole discretion, amend an outstanding Award
Notice from time to time in any manner that is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Plan;
and




          WHEREAS, the Committee has determined that the Participant’s termination of employment with
the Company (other than due to Cause, death or Disability) shall constitute “Retirement” under the
Plan; and




          WHEREAS, the Committee and the Participant desire to amend the Award Notice to make certain
changes with regard to the vesting provisions of the Award Notice;




          NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of October 27, 2008, the Award Notice is hereby amended as
follows:




          1. Section 4 of the Award Notice is hereby amended to read as follows:





     “4. Termination of Employment. If your employment with the Company or an
Affiliate terminates for any reason (other than as a result of death, Disability or
Retirement), the unvested portion of your Award will be automatically forfeited on
the date of such termination unless the Compensation Committee directs otherwise.
If your employment with the Company terminates as a result of your death, Disability
or Retirement, on or after October 28, 2008, the unvested portion of your Award will
immediately vest in full and all restrictions applicable to your Award will cease as
of the date of your termination.”



1









 





          2. The Award Notice shall remain in full force and effect and, as amended by this Amendment,
is hereby ratified and affirmed in all respects.




2









 





          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective as of October 27, 2008.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EXTERRAN HOLDINGS, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Stephen M. Pazuk	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Chairman, Compensation Committee	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	PARTICIPANT	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Stephen A. Snider	 	 







3