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

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 McCampbell Paris (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 

DEFENDANT MICHAEL LACEY’S 

JOINDER IN DEFENDANT JOYE 

VAUGHT’S OBJECTION TO THE 

FRYE-COOPER HEARING AND 

MOTION TO VACATE HEARING 

Defendant Michael Lacey, by and through his undersigned counsel, joins in Defendant 

Joye Vaught’s Objection to Frye-Cooper Hearing and Motion to Vacate Hearing (Dkt. 1681) 

(“Motion”). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1687 Filed 08/09/23 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

Mr. Lacey agrees with the arguments made in the Motion. Mr. Lacey adopts the 

positions set forth in the Motion as if fully set forth herein. 

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of August, 2023, 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

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

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Attorneys for Michael Lacey 

On August 9, 2023, 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 1687 Filed 08/09/23 Page 2 of 2
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)
 
 In connection with this quarterly report of ChromaDex Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10−Q for the quarter ending April 2, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Frank L. Jaksch Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Thomas C. Varvaro, 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, to our knowledge:
 
 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 result of operations of the Company.
   Date:  May 12, 2011

/s/ FRANK L. JAKSCH JR.Frank L. Jaksch Jr.

Chief Executive Officer/s/ THOMAS C. VARVAROThomas C. Varvaro

Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit K 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1223-11 Filed 08/19/21 Page 1 of 3
U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney

District of Arizona

Paul J. Cambria Jr.

Attorney at Law

Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria,

LLC

42 Delaware Ave, Suite 120 

Buffalo, NY 14202 

(attorney for Michael Lacey)

Jim Grant 

Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP

920 Fifth Avenue,

Suite 3300

Seattle, WA 98104

(attorney for Lacey and Larkin)

Robert Corn-Revere

Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP

1919 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., 

Suite 800

Washington, DC 20006

(attorney for Lacey and Larkin)

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr., Esq.

Bienert, Miller & Katzman, 

PLC

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350

San Clemente, CA 92673

(attorney for James Larkin)

Michael D. Kimerer, Esq.

1313 E. Osborn Road, 

Suite 100

Phoenix, AZ 85014

(attorney for Jed Brunst)

Bruce Feder, Esq.

2930 East Camelback Road, 

Suite 160

Phoenix, AZ 85016

(attorney for Scott Spear)

David S. Eisenberg, Esq.

3550 N. Central Ave., 

Suite 1155

Phoenix, AZ 85012

(attorney for Andrew Padilla)

Joy Malby Bertrand, Esq.

1826 N. 7th Avenue

Phoenix, AZ, 85007

(attorney for Joye Vaught)

Gary Lincenberg, Esq.

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, 

Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, 

P.C.

1875 Century Park East

23rd Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90067

(attorney for Jed Brunst)

Re: U.S. v. Michael Lacey, et.al.

CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB

Dear Counsel:

In an effort to assist you in easily locating specific financial records previously produced, the 

government has re-Bates these records and enclosed a disk that contains an index with the production 

BEGDOC and ENDDOC DOJ-BP Bates number, file name, and file path for each record.

1

 1 A thumb drive containing the re-produced financial records and a disk containing an index for this re-production 

for defendants Michael Lacey, James Larkin, and Jed Brunst are being provided to Paul Cambria Jr., Thomas H. 

Bienert Jr., and Gary Lincenberg respectively.

Two Renaissance Square Main: (602) 514-7500

40 N. Central Ave., Suite 1800 Main Fax: (602) 514-7693

Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408

January 13, 2020

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1223-11 Filed 08/19/21 Page 2 of 3
Lacey, et. al. Letter

January 13, 2020

Page 2

In the coming weeks, in an effort to further assist Defendants in preparing for trial, the 

government will provide you with a list identifying the specific financial records that relate to the 

money laundering charges in Counts 53-100 of the Superseding Indictment.

The thumb drive contains the following Bates Stamped records:

• Re-Bates Previously Produced Financial Records – DOJ-BP-0004902872-DOJ-BP0005068773

Please reach out with any questions.

Sincerely,

BRIAN BENCZKOWSKI

Assistant Attorney General

Criminal Division 

U.S. Department of Justice

s/Reginald E. Jones

REGINALD E. JONES 

Senior Trial Attorney, CEOS

(202) 616-2807 

reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov

MICHAEL BAILEY

U.S. Attorney 

KEVIN M. RAPP

MARGARET PERLMETER 

PETER S. KOZINETS 

ANDREW STONE

JOHN J. KUCERA 

Assistant United States Attorneys

Enclosures

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1223-11 Filed 08/19/21 Page 3 of 3
**Exhibit
      99.4**








CERTIFICATE
      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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-QSB of Siga
      Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended October 31, 2007, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Rohit
      Singh, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director, 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 and
      belief:





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





2.
      The
      information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      Company.








Date:
      November 15, 2007








ROHIT
      SINGH




Rohit
      Singh


Chief
      Accounting Officer


Chief
      Financial Officer and Director








-1-
Exhibit 4 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 235-5 Filed 07/26/18 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 235-5 Filed 07/26/18 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 235-5 Filed 07/26/18 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 235-5 Filed 07/26/18 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 235-5 Filed 07/26/18 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 235-5 Filed 07/26/18 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 235-5 Filed 07/26/18 Page 7 of 7
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 32831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16183]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Health Resources and Services Administration


Project Grants for Renovation or Construction of Non-Acute Health 
Care Facilities

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Notice of Availability of Funds, Project Grants for 
Renovation or Construction of Non-Acute Health Care Facilities, which 
was published on June 13, 1996, at 61 FR 30077, is corrected to include 
the following areas in Puerto Rico that were not on the original list:

Appendix I--Metropolitan Areas

Puerto Rico (part):
    Loiza Municipio
    Luquillo Municipio
    Manati Municipio
    Mayaguez Municipio
    Moca Municipio
    Naranjito Municipio
    Ponce Municipio
    Quebradillas Municipio
    Rio Grande Municipio
    San German Municipio
    San Juan Municipio
    San Lorenzo Municipio
    Toa Alta Municipio
    Toa Baja Municipio
    Trujillo Alto Municipio
    Vega Alta Municipio
    Vega Baja Municipio

    Dated: June 20, 1996.
Ciro V. Sumaya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-16183 Filed 6-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135442 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135442 COA: 272549 Kalkaska CC: 04-002461-FC FRANK J. MATTOON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e October 18, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

p0317 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 24, 2008

Clerk
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 26 Filed 04/09/18 Page 1 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 26 Filed 04/09/18 Page 2 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 26 Filed 04/09/18 Page 3 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 26 Filed 04/09/18 Page 4 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 26 Filed 04/09/18 Page 5 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 26 Filed 04/09/18 Page 6 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 26 Filed 04/09/18 Page 7 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 26 Filed 04/09/18 Page 8 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 26 Filed 04/09/18 Page 9 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 26 Filed 04/09/18 Page 10 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 26 Filed 04/09/18 Page 11 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 26 Filed 04/09/18 Page 12 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 26 Filed 04/09/18 Page 13 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 26 Filed 04/09/18 Page 14 of 14
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sally Holdings LLC (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, MarkJ. Flaherty, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | By:                                                   | /s/  Mark J. Flaherty |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
|   | Mark  J. Flaherty                                     |
|   | Senior  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of |
|   | Sally Holdings LLC                                    |

 

 

February 4, 2010

 

----
#### DADE COUNTY NURSING HOME DISTRICT, d/b/a Dade County Nursing Home, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION of MEDICAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18542.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Oct. 22, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 18, 1993.

Application to Transfer Denied Dec. 21, 1993.

Richard Beaver, Dept, of Social Services, Div. of Legal Services, Jefferson City, for defendant-appellant.

Husch & Eppenberger, Mark G. Arnold, St. Louis, Harvey M. Tettlebaum and Barbara Miltenberger, Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

GARRISON, Judge.

The Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of Medical Services (the Department), appeals from a judgment holding that a regulation establishing a new method of calculating amounts to be paid to nursing homes participating in the Missouri Medicaid program denies equal protection of the law. The respondent, Dade County Nursing Home District, d/b/a Dade County Nursing Home (Dade County Nursing), operates a nursing home providing long-term care to Medicaid recipients.

This case presents the same questions as those presented and decided in *Rolla Manor, Inc., d/b/a Rolla Manor Care Center v. Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of Medical Services,*865 S.W.2d 812, handed down concurrently herewith. The plaintiff-respondent in the instant case had a fiscal year end of June 30, which resulted in a per diem rate of reimbursement under the “New Plan” different from that applicable to Rolla Manor. Except for that factual distinction, which would not alter our conclusion on the issues presented, our opinion in the instant case would be the same as in the *Rolla Manor*case. We do, therefore, adopt the opinion in Case No. 18535 as the opinion in this case and reverse and remand with directions to reinstate the decision of the Administrative Hearing Commission to the extent it affirmed the Department’s rebased rate for Dade County Nursing.

MONTGOMERY, P.J., and FLANIGAN, J., concur.
EXHIBIT
32.1







CERTIFICATION


OF


CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER








Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Capital City
Energy Group, Inc. do hereby certify that:







(a)
            The
      Form 10-Q/A, Amendment No. 1 of Capital City Energy Group, Inc. for
      the period ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934; and





(b)
            Information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of Capital City Energy
      Group, Inc.








Dated:  January
20,
2009                                                                     /s/
Timothy Crawford


Timothy
W. Crawford


Chief
Executive Officer








Dated:  January
20,
2009                                                                     /s/
Douglas Crawford


Douglas
Crawford


Chief
Accounting Officer
#### Larry SMOOT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND; Warden, Maryland House of Correction-Annex, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 03-6068.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 8, 2003.

Decided Aug. 8, 2003.

Larry Smoot, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Larry M. Smoot, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smoot has not made *237the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*

*

 We note that the district court erred in its failure to have the State serve Smoot with copies of its exhibits and to give Smoot the notice required pursuant to *Roseboro v. Garrison,*528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir.1975). However, Smoot’s failure to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) precludes us from issuing a certificate of appealability.
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; andd)
    
    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 StockAlan StockChief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellant,

v.

JESUS ALBERTO GERARDO,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00142-CR

Appeal from

384th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 20120D03572)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on The State’s motion to dismiss and concludes the 

motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed, in accordance with the opinion of 

this Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We further order that this decision be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice 

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
Order entered December 21 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 09
- 01068
- CV
DONALD CARDWELL AND 121 INVESTMENTS, L.L .C., Appellant s V. BILL GURLEY , Appellee On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 06
- 03299



### O RDER A review of the clerk’s record shows that the Dallas County District Clerk could not locate several items critical to determining our jurisdiction. Specifically, appellant s’ request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, motion for new trial, and notice of appeal cannot be located. Also, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law cannot be located. Accordingly, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(e), we ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing and make findings of fact regarding:
1. whether , after a further search, file

- stamped copies of appellants’ request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, motion for new trial, notice of appeal, and the trial court’s findi ngs of fact and conclusions of law can be located;2. if the above

- listed documents cannot be located, whether the parties can agree on

substituted file

- stamped cop i es of appellants’ request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, motion for new tri al, notice of appeal, and the trial court’s findings of fact and co nclusions of law; and
3. if the parties cannot agree, the trial court shall determine what constitutes an accurate copy of the missing items and order them to be included in a supplemental clerk’s
record.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 34.5(e).
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental clerk’s record containing its written findings, any supporting documentation, and any orders to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.
We DIR ECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable Dale Tillery, Presiding Judge, 134th Judicial District Court, Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk, and counsel for all parties.
We ABATE this appeal to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal will be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings is received, whichever occurs sooner.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE