alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Late File Reply on Defendant 

James Larkin’s Opposition in Response to United States’ Application for Order 

Regarding Criminal Forfeiture of Property in Government Custody. (Doc. 303) Having 

reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Late File Reply on 

Defendant James Larkin’s Opposition in Response to United States’ Application for 

Order Regarding Criminal Forfeiture of Property in Government Custody (Doc. 303) is 

granted. The Clerk of Court shall file the lodged Reply (Doc. 303-1). 

 Dated this 27th day of September, 2018. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

United States of America, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 325 Filed 09/27/18 Page 1 of 1
Opinion issued December 7, 2012
.

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 2
- 00 963
- CV

——————————— IN RE SOUTHAMPTON PLACE EX TENSION PROPERTY OWN ERS ASSOCIATION, INC. AN D ANN G. HIGHTOWER , Relator s

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator s , Southampt on Place Extension Property Owners Association, Inc. and Ann G. Hightower , ha ve filed a petition for writ of mandamus, challenging the
trial court’s Motion to Compel discovery and the trial court’s grant of the2

plaintiffs’ partial Motion for New Trial. 1 Southampton and Hightower contend
that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering them to produce the remaining insurance policy limits on an e roding insurance policy, and in granting the plaintiffs’ partial motion for new trial as to their claims for negligence and gross negligence.
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 2 All pending motions are
denied.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Jus tices Jennings, Higley , and Sharp.

1 The underlying case is Thurmond v. Southampton Place Extension Property Owners Association, Inc ., No. 2010

- 51417, in the 129th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Michael Gomez presiding.

2 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.89(d) (providing that, w hen denying relief requested in petition for writ of mandamus , “ court may hand down an opini on but is not required to do so”).
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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CR-18-422-PHX-SMB 

ORDER GRANTING ACLU OF 

ARIZONA’S UNOPPOSED 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF 

REGARDING FIRST 

AMENDMENT 

CONSIDERATIONS 

Having reviewed the ACLU of Arizona’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File 

Amicus Curiae Brief Regarding First Amendment Considerations, and good cause 

appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. Doc. 620.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ACLU of Arizona’s Amicus Curiae Brief 

Regarding First Amendment Considerations, which was lodged with the Motion for Leave, 

shall be properly filed. 

 Dated this 29th day of May, 2019. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 622 Filed 05/30/19 Page 1 of 1
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 105 

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to establish criminal 

penalties for knowingly and willfully falsifying or failing to file or report 

certain information required to be reported under that Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 6, 2009 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to establish 

criminal penalties for knowingly and willfully falsifying 

or failing to file or report certain information required 

to be reported under that Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. KNOWING AND WILLFUL FALSIFICATION OR 

4 FAILURE TO REPORT. 

5 Section 104 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 

6 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended— 

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(a)’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following: 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•S 105 IS

1 ‘‘(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to know2 ingly and willfully falsify, or to knowingly and willingly 

3 fail to file or report, any information that such person is 

4 required to report under section 102. 

5 ‘‘(B) Any person who violates subparagraph (A) shall 

6 be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned 

7 for not more than 1 year, or both.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
**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 the Quarterly Report of Sally Holdings LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary G. Winterhalter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.

 
|                  |                                            |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                  | By:                                             | /s/ Gary G.   Winterhalter |
|                  | Gary G. Winterhalter                            |
|                  | Chief Executive   Officer of Sally Holdings LLC |
| February 3, 2011 |                                            |

 

----
#### David D. NEWSOM, Jr., Appellant, v. David Duvall NEWSOM, Sr. and Ann C. Newsom; Edith Cox, Lincoln Circuit Court Clerk; and Hon. Robert J. Jackson, Circuit Judge, Appellees.

No. 89-CA-478-S.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 30, 1990.

Robert R. Baker, Rankin & Baker, Stanford, for appellant.

*879David D. Newsom, Sr. and Ann C. New-som, Stanford, pro se.

Edith Cox, Stanford, pro se.

Robert J. Jackson, Nicholasville, pro se.

Before EMBERTON, HAYES and WILHOIT, JJ.

HAYES, Judge:

David D. Newsom, Jr. appeals from an order entered in Lincoln Circuit court denying his request for a second inspection of his adoption records.

In August, 1988 the appellant, age 45, petitioned the court to permit inspection of his adoption records pursuant to KRS 199.-572 of Kentucky’s adoption statute. The court then issued an order requiring the Cabinet for Human Resources [Cabinet] to locate the biological parents within six months to obtain their written consent. KRS 199.572(3). The Cabinet responded by affidavit stating that there was no need to conduct a search for appellant’s mother as appellant had already located and contacted her on his own. There was no search for the father as none had been listed on the birth certificate. Appellant’s mother executed her written consent to inspection of any and all adoption records. Thereafter the court issued an order on July 18, 1988, permitting inspection but prohibiting copying of any documents and prohibiting permanent opening of the records, in order to retain their confidential nature.

Appellant inspected the records. Several months later appellant again requested to inspect the documents but his request was denied by the court on grounds that continued inspection was not intended by the legislature. This appeal followed.

Appellant argues that such denial was erroneous as when he viewed these records their confidential nature was lost and that he should be permitted to inspect them again as long as the statutory procedures are followed. We agree.

KRS 199.572 outlines the procedures to be followed. The petitioner initially applies to the circuit court for authorization to inspect all papers and records pertaining to the adoption proceedings. The Cabinet is then directed to personally notify the biological parents to obtain their consent. If both parents are deceased or cannot be located, the court may order that the records shall be open for inspection. Nowhere in the statute is there a restriction on the number of times the petitioner may view the documents. As that statute is relatively new, enacted July 15,1986, there is no case law on this issue. However, as the trial court in its initial order denied the appellant’s request to copy the material, it was an abuse of discretion to deny his request to inspect the records a second time.

Accordingly, the order of the Lincoln Circuit Court is reversed and this case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

All concur.
Exhibit 32



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the

Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350



Each of the undersigned,
the Chief Executive Officer and the Senior Vice President-Chief Financial Officer, of ITC^DeltaCom, Inc., hereby certifies that, on the date hereof:



| | 1. | The annual report on Form 10-K of ITC^DeltaCom, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed on March 31, 2005, as amended by the amendment filed on the date hereof, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ITC^DeltaCom, Inc.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                              
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Date: April 15, 2005 |  | /s/ Randall E. Curran                        
|                     |  | Randall E. Curran                            
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer                      
|                     | 
|Date: April 15, 2005 |  | /s/ Douglas A. Shumate                       
|                     |  | Douglas A. Shumate                           
|                     |  | Senior Vice President-Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2  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 the Quarterly Report of China Multimedia, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended March 31, 2009 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  /s/Wilson CheungWilson Cheung, Chief Financial Officer May 15, 2009
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 812 

Recognizing the significant contributions of the Military Working Dog (MWD) 

Program to the United States Armed Forces. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 7, 2009 

Mr. LANCE (for himself, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. BACA, Mrs. BLACKBURN, 

Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mr. 

CASTLE, Ms. GIFFORDS, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. 

JONES, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. 

NYE, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. RODRIGUEZ, Mr. SMITH of New 

Jersey, Mr. WHITFIELD, and Mr. WILSON of South Carolina) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed 

Services 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the significant contributions of the Military 

Working Dog (MWD) Program to the United States 

Armed Forces. 

Whereas the Military Working Dog (MWD) Program, or K– 

9 Corps, was developed in 1942, shortly after the United 

States entered World War II; 

Whereas all four branches of the United States Armed 

Forces as well as other government agencies, including 

the Secret Service, Central Intelligence Agency, and 

Transportation Security Authority, use MWDs in service 

to the country; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 812 IH 

Whereas MWDs are trained in explosive detection, narcotic 

detection, sentry, patrol, tracking, and other specific 

areas; 

Whereas MWDs, through their training, have prevented injuries and saved the lives of thousands of United States 

citizens; 

Whereas more than 20,000 MWDs were acquired by the 

United States Armed Forces during World War II and 

of those 20,000, a little more than 10,000 MWDs were 

utilized in the war effort; 

Whereas more than 1,500 MWDs were employed during the 

Korean War and 4,000 in the Vietnam War; 

Whereas, since September 11, 2001, MWDs have served in 

Iraq and Afghanistan and have been employed in detection work as part of homeland security and defense efforts; 

Whereas today approximately 2,000 MWDs serve at nearly 

170 United States military bases worldwide, including 

bases in 40 States and 3 United States territories; 

Whereas retired MWD Ben C020 is recognized for his nearly 

11 years of service in the Air Force; and 

Whereas organizations such as K9 Soldiers, Inc. are recognized for their work in coordination with the Department 

of Defense to help bring MWDs stationed overseas home 

to the United States for adoption when their active duty 

days are over and provide support to active K9 military 

teams worldwide: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 812 IH 

1 (1) recognizes the significant contributions of 

2 the Military Working Dog (MWD) Program to the 

3 United States Armed Forces; 

4 (2) honors retired Air Force MWD Ben C020 

5 for his lifetime of service; and 

6 (3) supports the adoption and care of these 

7 quality animals after their service is over. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### Bob J. SETTLE, Appellant, v. CITY OF GLADSTONE, Missouri, et al., Respondents.

No. WD 41737.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 16, 1990.

Bob J. Settle, pro se.

Leary G. Skinner, Liberty, for City of Kansas City.

E. David Swartzbaugh, Kansas City, for Joseph McHale, et al.

Terry Lynn Karnaze, Kansas City, for City of Gladstone, et al.

Michael P. Joyce, Kansas City, for James Wyrsch.

Before NUGENT, C.J., FENNER, J., and WASSERSTROM, Senior Judge.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Bob J. Settle, appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his First Amended Petition purporting to state federal statutory claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985, claims under Article I §§ 14, 15, 21 and 23 of the Missouri Constitution, and Missouri common law claims of “false arrest, false imprisonment, conspiracy, mali*804cious prosecution, abuse of process and [denial of] due process because of the unjust and illegal acts of defendants.” Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

feder law office, p.a.

2930 e. camelback road, suite 160

phoenix, arizona 85016

(602) 257-0135

bf@federlawpa.com

fl@federlawpa.com

Bruce Feder - State Bar No. 004832

Attorney for Defendant, Scott Spear

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

Scott Spear. )

)

Defendant. )

NO. CR18-00422 (003) PHX SPL

JOINDER IN DEFENDANT MICHAEL

LACEY’S MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE

OF DOCUMENTS RELATED TO CARL

FERRER’S WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE AS

MATERIAL TO DISQUALIFICATION

The Defendant, Scott Spear, by and through his attorneys undersigned, hereby joins in

Defendant Michael Lacey’s Motion for Disclosure of Documents Related to Carl Ferrer’s Waiver

of Privilege as Material to Disqualification [DE 200, refiled at DE 202] and adopts the positions

set forth in said Motion(s) as if fully set forth herein. The issues raised by Defendant Lacey in

said Motion(s) apply with equal force to Defendant Spear.

It is expected that excludable delay under 18, U.S.C. §3161(h)(1) may occur as a result of

this Motion or entry of an Order based herein.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 2nd day of July, 2018.

FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A.

/s/ Bruce Feder

Attorney for Defendant, Scott Spear

. . .

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 206 Filed 07/02/18 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

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of July, 2018, I electronically transmitted the foregoing

to the Clerk of the Court via the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic

Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

Kevin Rapp: Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov

Andrew Stone: Andrew.Stone@usdoj.gov

Margaret Perlmeter: Margaret.Perlmeter@usdoj.gov

John Kucera: John.Kucera@usdoj.gov

Reginald Jones: Reginald.Jones@usdoj.gov

Peter S. Kozinets: Peter.Kozinets@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States

Paul Cambria: pcambira@lglaw.com

James Grant: jimgrant@dwt.com

Erin McCampbell: emccampbell@lglaw.com

Robert Corn-Rever: bobcornrevere@dwt.com

Ronald London: ronnielondon@dwt.com

Janey Henze Cook: janey@henzecookemurphy.com

John Littrell: jlittrell@bmkattorneys.com

Kenneth Miller: kmiller@bmkattorneys.com

Thoms Bienert: tbienert@bmkattorneys.com

KC Maxwell: kcm@kcmazlaw.com

David Wakukawa: dsw@kcmaxlaw.com

Michael Piccarreta: mlp@pd-law.com

Stephen M. Weiss: sweiss@karpweiss.com

Michael Kimerer: mdk@kimerer.com

Tom Bienert: tbienert@bmkattorneys.com

Gary Lincenberg: gsl@birdmarella.com

Attorneys for the Defense

By: /s/ A. Jones

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 206 Filed 07/02/18 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT 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 and SallyCapital Inc. (the “Companies”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period endedMarch 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark J. Flaherty , Vice President, Acting ChiefFinancial Officer,  Chief AccountingOfficer and Controller  of each of the Companies,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Companies.

 

 
|   | By:                                                                                      |   /s/ MARK J. FLAHERTY |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|   | Mark J. Flaherty                                                                         |
|   | Vice President, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer  and Controller |
|   | Sally Holdings LLC and Sally Capital Inc.                                                |

 

May 8, 2008

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

W.W.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 252 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of
Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The
undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Behringer Harvard Opportunity REIT II, Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certify as
follows:

The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company (the "Report"), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated
this 15th day of November, 2010.

/s/ ROBERT S. AISNER Robert S. Aisner Chief Executive Officer/s/ GARY S. BRESKY Gary S. Bresky Chief Financial Officer


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

TERRY M. HOWLEY,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 08-13977-BC

 v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

FRED L. BORCHARD,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, OVERRULING

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION, AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR

LACK OF JURISDICTION

This matter is before the Court on a report issued by Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder on

October 20, 2008. The magistrate judge recommends sua sponte dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint

for lack of jurisdiction. On November 3, 2008, Plaintiff filed an objection. However, Plaintiff’s

objection does not address any specific portion of the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, nor does Plaintiff argue that this Court has jurisdiction over the matter. The Court

agrees with the reasoning and conclusion of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 6] is ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection [Dkt. # 7]is OVERRULED.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint [Dkt. # 1] is DISMISSED for lack of

jurisdiction.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: December 23, 2008
-2-

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on December 23, 2008.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS