alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 3 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1393-3 Filed 11/17/21 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:

On November 27, 2019, the prosecution team indicated that it would provide you all nonprivileged records received from the taint team to date. (See 11/27/19 letter, attached hereto.) As 

such, please find enclosed a thumb drive containing the following Bates Stamped records received 

from the taint team.1

 1 A thumb drive containing disclosure 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

December 17, 2019

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1393-3 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 3
Lacey, et. al. Discovery Letter 

December 17, 2019

Page 2

• Records Prosecution Team Received From Taint Team – DOJ-BP-0004900587-DOJ-BP0004902871

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 1393-3 Filed 11/17/21 Page 3 of 3
/ 

/4\ 

FILED 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

JUL 30 2010 

Clerk us' 

C ". District & 8 Ourts for the Dist . ankruptcy 

KEITH SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Civil Action No. 

THE UNITED STATES, et al., 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

10 1299 

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis 

and pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed. 

Plaintiff alleges that he has been kidnapped and is held illegally in a private prison, the 

Wheeler Correctional Facility in Alamo, Georgia. Among other relief, plaintiff demands 

unspecified injunctive relief and $20 million in damages. 

net of COlumbia 

Because plaintiffs claims go to the fact of his incarceration, he cannot recover damages 

in this civil rights action without showing that his confinement has been invalidated by 

"revers[al] on direct appeal, expunge[ment] by executive order, declar[ation of invalidity] by a 

state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or ... a federal court's issuance of a writ of 

habeas corpus." Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,486-87 (1994); accord White v. Bowie, 194 

F.3d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (table). Plaintiff has not satisfied this prerequisite and therefore his 

complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can granted. This action will be dismissed 

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(8)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). An Order is issued separately.
EXHIBIT 31.1

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Dennis McLaughlin, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Evolution Resources, Inc.

2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4.

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and

c)

presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.

I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls

6.

I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: June 12, 2009

| |                                             
| | --------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Dennis McLaughlin                       
| | Dennis McLaughlin                           
| | Title: Chief Executive Officer and President
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1046 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the excise tax 

provisions and income tax credit for biodiesel. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2009 

Mrs. LINCOLN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the excise tax provisions and income tax credit for biodiesel. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXCISE TAX PROVISIONS AND 

4 INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR BIODIESEL. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Sections 40A(g), 6426(c)(6), and 

6 6427(e)(5)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are 

7 each amended by striking ‘‘2009’’ and inserting ‘‘2018’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•S 1046 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

3 of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Julius NICKERSON, Defendant/Appellant. Julius NICKERSON, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 64861, 67202.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Nov. 21, 1995.

Robert E. Steele, Jr., Office of the State Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of judgments for attempted rape, assault in the first degree, •burglary in the first degree and two counts of armed criminal action. Defendant alleges the trial court erred in admitting the out-of-court identification into evidence because the procedures were impermissibly suggestive and also argues the trial court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion of ineffective assistance of counsel. We have carefully considered the evidence and the record and find no error. Therefore, an extended opinion would be of no jurisprudential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b) and Rule 30.25(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order.
##### 



Exhibit
4.2
 Restricted Stock Unit Award (#) ____
 AMENDED AND RESTATED CINEMARK HOLDINGS, INC.
2006 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD CERTIFICATE
  Company   Grantee  Restricted Stock Units Award  Plan 
 Name of Grantee:Hypothetical Number of Shares:Offer Grant Date:
    
    , 2008Offer Expiration Date:
    
    _____ Days after the Offer Grant DatePayment Date:Vesting Provisions:
  IRR
    
    Vesting Percentageless than 8.5%
    
    
    0.0
    %8.5% but less than 10.5%
    
    
    33.3
    %10.5% but less than 12.5%
    
    
    66.6
    %12.5% or greater
    
    
    100.0
    %
 
  GRANTEE:
    
    
    
    Cinemark Holdings, Inc.By:Name:
    
    
    
    
    
    Name:Title:Dated:
    
    
    
    
    
    Dated:




---



##### 



AMENDED AND RESTATED
CINEMARK HOLDINGS, INC.
2006 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
 RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT
 Agreement  Certificate   Company   Grantee 
  Plan  Restricted Stock Units Award
 NOW THEREFORE
 Basis For Award GRANT
 Units Awarded
  Restricted Stock Unit Account
  1




---



##### 



Vesting
 Payment
 Compliance with Laws and Regulations
 Tax Withholding Share Withholding
 Nontransferability
 No Right to Continued Service
 2




---



##### 



Representations and Warranties of Grantee
 Agrees to Terms of the Plan
 Cooperation
 Modification
 Plan
 Interpretation
 Successors and Assigns
 Governing Law
 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

PICCARRETA DAVIS KEENAN FIDEL PC

2 East Congress Street, Suite 1000

Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 622-6900

Michael L. Piccarreta

State Bar No. 003962

Email: mlp@pd-law.com

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

6. Andrew Padilla,

 (Counts 1-51)

7. Joye Vaught,

 (Counts 1-51)

 

 Defendant.

NO. CR-18-00422-06-PHX-SPL (BSB)

SUBMISSION OF REDACTED 

EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF 

EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY 

SEIZURE OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 

REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE HEARING

Defendants Andrew Padilla and Joye Vaught, by and through their undersigned 

counsel, hereby submit redacted copies of the exhibits to their Emergency Motion to Stay 

Seizure of Attorneys’ Fees and Request for Immediate Hearing (Doc. 360). The original 

exhibits inadvertently contained some information that should have been redacted. The 

redacted exhibits are therefore submitted in their stead.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 363 Filed 11/08/18 Page 1 of 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

2

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 8th day of November, 2018.

PICCARRETA DAVIS KEENAN FIDEL PC

By: /s/ Michael L. Piccarreta

Michael L. Piccarreta

Attorney for Andrew Padilla

KARP & WEISS, P.C.

By: /s/ Stephen M. Weiss

Stephen M. Weiss

Attorney for Joye Vaught

On November 18, 2018, a PDF version

of this document was filed with the

Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF

System for filing and for Transmittal

of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the

following CM/ECF registrants:

Reginald Jones, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov

Peter Kozinets, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov

John Kucera, john.kucera@usdoj.gov

Margaret Perlmeter, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov

Kevin Rapp, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Patrick Reid, Patrick.Reid@usdoj.gov>

Andrew Stone, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov

Amanda Wick, Amanda.Wick@usdoj.gov

Paul Cambria, pcambria@lglaw.com

Tom Bienert, tbienert@bmkattorneys.com

Bruce Feder, bf@federlawpa.com

Michael Kimerer, mdk@kimerer.com

Stephen Weiss, sweiss@karpweiss.com

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 363 Filed 11/08/18 Page 2 of 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Victor Flores,

Plaintiff,

v. 

B. Ekren, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. CV-18-00843-PHX-SRB

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues 

have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Court’s Minute Entry

filed November 10, 2022, judgment is entered in favor of defendants Brandon Ekren and 

Michael Pezzelle and against plaintiff. This action is hereby terminated.

Debra D. Lucas

District Court Executive/Clerk of Court

November 14, 2022

s/ Wendy Poth

By Deputy Clerk

Case 2:18-cv-00843-SRB Document 186 Filed 11/14/22 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.2**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002In connection with the Annual Report of RCN Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,respectively (the “Report”), Michael T. Sicoli, as Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto 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 Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations ofthe Company./s/ MICHAEL T. SICOLI
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

3855942.1

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-DJH

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Assigned to Hon. Diane J. Humetewa, 

Courtroom 506

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1531-1 Filed 03/14/23 Page 1 of 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

3855942.1 2

ORDER

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Upon the motion of Defendant John Brunst, with good cause appearing and with no 

objection from the Government,

IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Brunst’s counsel may appear at the March 20, 2023

hearing in this action by virtual teleconference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

Hon. Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1531-1 Filed 03/14/23 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 264 Filed 08/10/18 Page 1 of 1
exv10w19






Exhibit 10.19




AMENDMENT TO TELETECH HOLDINGS, INC.

NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT




     AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”), dated as of September 17, 2008, by and among Kenneth D.
Tuchman (“Optionee”) and TeleTech Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation
(“TeleTech”).



WITNESSETH:




     WHEREAS, Optionee and TeleTech are parties to that certain TeleTech Holdings, Inc.
Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2001 (the “Agreement”),
pursuant to which Optionee received non-qualified options to purchase 420,000 shares of TeleTech’s
common stock at an exercise price of US$6.98 per share (the “2001 Stock Options”);



     WHEREAS, as disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 20, 2008 and in conjunction with TeleTech’s review of historical
equity-based compensation practices (the “Review”), Optionee volunteered to forego any
benefits that Optionee may have derived from TeleTech’s issuance of any stock options were
mistakenly issued with an exercise price that was below the fair market value of the Company’s
common stock on the appropriate accounting measurement date;



     WHEREAS, upon completion of the Review, Optionee has offered to increase the exercise price of
such 2001 Stock Options from US$6.98 per share to US$7.95 per share, the fair market value of
TeleTech’s common stock on the appropriate accounting measurement date (October 29, 2001); and



     WHEREAS, the members of TeleTech’s Compensation Committee have accepted Optionee’s offer to
increase the exercise price of such 2001 Stock Options and has authorized the Senior Vice President
and Interim Chief Financial Officer to execute this Amendment on behalf of TeleTech.




     NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained
herein, the parties hereto agree to amend the first sentence of Section 1 of the Agreement as
follows:




     1. Grant of Option. Subject to the terms and conditions of the
TeleTech Holdings, Inc. 1999 Stock Option and Incentive Plan as amended (the
“Plan”), a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, TeleTech grants to Optionee an option (the “Option”) to purchase
420,000 shares (the “Shares”) of TeleTech’s common stock, $.01 par value
(the “Common Stock”), at a price equal to US$7.95 per share (the “Option
Price”).



     FURTHER RESOLVED, that all other terms of the 2001 Stock Options, including the vesting
schedule, shall remain the same as those specified in the Agreement; and



1









 





     FURTHER RESOLVED, this Amendment may be executed in any number of separate counterparts, each
of which shall collectively and separately constitute one agreement.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed as of the date first written above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	TELETECH HOLDINGS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ John R. Troka, Jr.
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	John R. Troka, Jr. 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Senior Vice President and Interim

Chief Financial Officer 	 
	 
	 	OPTIONEE

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Kenneth D. Tuchman
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Kenneth D. Tuchman 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 




2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 846 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 846

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 22, 2009.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3585) to guide and provide for United States research, development, 
and demonstration of solar energy technologies, and for other purposes. The 
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 
one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Science and Technology. After general debate the bill shall 
be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute 
rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Science and Technology now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except those 
arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no 
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question. All points of order against such amendments are waived except those 
arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of 
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
    Sec. 2.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the Committee rise only if 
offered by the chair of the Committee on Science and Technology or his designee. 
The Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

In the interest of justice, the Court must retain the empaneled Jury in this matter

longer than it had anticipated. At the outset, 110 prospective Jurors reported for jury 

selection on August 29, 2023. (Doc. 1711), and of this jury pool, 16 Jurors were selected 

to serve. (Doc. 1745). Initially, the Court had informed these prospective Jurors that jury 

service would be through November 9, 2023. However, due to unforeseen circumstances

and delay caused by illness of a party and/or of the jury members, the Court has determined 

it is necessary to extend the service of the Jury through November 17, 2023. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the service of the empaneled and deliberating Jurors shall 

be extended through Friday, November 17, 2023. 

Dated this 7th day of November, 2023.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1949 Filed 11/08/23 Page 1 of 1