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

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

KARP & WEISS, P.C.

3060 North Swan Road

Tucson, Arizona 85712-1225

Telephone (520) 325-4200

Facsimile (520) 325-4224

Stephen M. Weiss

PCC No. 61412

State Bar No. 002261

sweiss@karpweiss.com

Adam C. Page

PCC No. 66148

State Bar No. 025015

apage@karpweiss.com

Attorneys for Defendant Joye Vaught

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 v.

7. JOYE VAUGHT

Defendants

CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL (BSB)

DEFENDANT VAUGHT’S NOTICE

OF JOINDER IN DEFENDANT

PADILLA’S REPLY TO RESPONSE

TO MOTION FOR 

ITEMIZATION OF BRADY/GIGLIO

MATERIAL (DOCS 273, 294)

Defendant Joye Vaught, by and through her undersigned attorney, joins in 

Defendant Andrew Padilla’s Reply to Response to Motion for Itemization of 

Brady/Giglio Material (Docs 273, 294). Defendant Vaught agrees with the arguments 

made in Defendant Padilla’s Reply. Defendant Vaught adopts the positions set forth in 

said Response as if fully set forth herein. The issues raised in the Reply apply with 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 318 Filed 09/20/18 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

equal force to Ms. Vaught.

DATED this 20th day of September, 2018.

KARP & WEISS, P.C.

By /s/ Stephen M. Weiss 

Stephen M. Weiss

Attorney for Defendant Vaught

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 20th day of September, 2018, I electronically 

transmitted the foregoing document on behalf of Joye Vaught to the Clerk of the Court 

by filing with the CM/ECF system and I understand a copy of the filing will be emailed 

to the following CM/ECF registrants:

Honorable Steven P. Logan: logan_chambers@azd.uscourts.gov

Reginald E. Jones: reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov

Peter Kozinets: peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov

John J. Kucera: john.kucera@usdoj.gov

Dominic William Lanza: dominic.lanza@usdoj.gov

Margaret Perlmeter: margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov 

Kevin M. Rapp: kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Andrew Stone: andrew.stone@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Government

Paul J. Cambria, Jr.: pcambria@lglaw.com

Robert Corn-Revere: bobcornrevere@dwt.com

Bruce S. Feder: bf@federlawpa.com

James C. Grant: jimgrant@dwt.com

Michael D. Kimerer: MDK@kimerer.com

K. C. Maxwell: kmaxwell@bgrfirm.com

Erin E. McCampbell: emccampbell@lglaw.com

Michael L. Piccarreta: mlp@pd-law.com

Rhonda Neff: RNeff@kimerer.com

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 318 Filed 09/20/18 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

UNITED ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP

INC. AND STEPHEN W. KLESIC,

 Petitioners

 v.

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK

INDEMNIFICATION BOARD; ICF

INTERNATIONAL, INC.; ICF

INCORPORATED; JAMES A. MICELI;

AND RONALD S. MOORE,

 Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 535 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Leave to Reply to the

Answer and the Petition for Allowance of Appeal are DENIED.
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-18-0422-PHX-DJH

ORDER

This matter has been referred to the undersigned for setting of a Frye/Cooper

hearing (Doc. 1676).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED setting a Frye/Cooper hearing for August 15, 2023, at 9:30 a.m.

before Judge Fine in courtroom 303. One hour has been set aside for this hearing. 

Defendants must personally appear with their counsel.

The Court finds there is no excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161.

Dated this 7th day of August, 2023.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1677 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 1
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 on Form 10-Q/A of Lightlake Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company") for the three month ended October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Dr. Roger Crystal, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.








Date: November 9, 2011                            By: /s/ Seijin Ki


Seijin Ki


Chief Financial Officer





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 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 by the Company for purposes of ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 2G

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 498-8 Filed 03/12/19 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 498-8 Filed 03/12/19 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 498-8 Filed 03/12/19 Page 3 of 3
Order entered March 31 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00207

- CR

STEPHANIE ANN SCHENK , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. 380

- 82013

- 2012



### O RDER
Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing is GRANTED

. Appellant’s motion for rehearing shall be filed by April 16, 2015

.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
**Exhibit
      99.2**




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 six months ended January 31, 2008, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arun
      Kumar, Chief Executive Officer, President 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:
      February 13, 2008





ARUN
      KUMAR




Arun
      Kumar


Chief
      Executive Officer,


President
      and Director








-1-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DWIGHT T. BULEY,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 08-14005

Honorable Paul D. Borman

THOMAS BELL,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

On September 17, 2008, Petitioner Dwight T. Buley, a state prisoner presently confined

at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan, filed a pro se petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, case number 08-14005, which was assigned to the

undersigned Judge. Upon initial screening of the case, this Court discovered that, on August 26,

2008, Petitioner also filed a habeas action with this Court, case number 08-13688, which was

assigned to a different judge. Buley v. Bell, Case No. 08-CV-13688 (Ludington, J.). However,

because Petitioner failed to pay the necessary filing fee in that case, an order was entered

requesting that Petitioner comply by paying the necessary filing fee or file an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. See Buley v. Bell, Case No. 08-CV-13688 (Dkt. # 2). Now, it

appears that Petitioner, in an attempt to correct his deficiency, filed an application to proceed in

forma pauperis and attached this present petition to that application. 

Accordingly, the instant action must be dismissed as duplicative. Petitioner challenges

the same convictions and raises the same claims in both petitions. Therefore, the Court will

dismiss this second petition as duplicative. See Davis v. United States Parole Comm’n, 870 F.2d
-2-

657 (6th Cir. March 7, 1989) (district court may dismiss a habeas petition as duplicative of a

pending habeas petition when the second petition is essentially the same as the first petition).

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the instant case as duplicative. This dismissal is

without prejudice to the habeas petition filed as Case No. 08-13688. In order to proceed,

Defendant is instructed to file an in forma pauperis application in Case No. 08-13688, if he has

not already done so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 26, 2008

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

September 26, 2008.

s/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 21, 2016

t1220

Order 

Clerk

December 21, 2016

153346 & (60)

FORD MOTOR COMPANY and FORD PARTS

& SERVICES DIVISION,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

Cross-Appellants,

v SC: 153346

COA: 322673 

Ct of Claims: 06-000104-MT

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 09-000105-MT

Defendant-Appellant,

Cross-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 15, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as crossappellants are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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

3867224.1

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 1583-1 Filed 05/09/23 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

3867224.1 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 May 22, 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 1583-1 Filed 05/09/23 Page 2 of 2
PUBLISH

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-14258

D. C. Docket No. 2:10-cv-02142-JHH

SHERRY ROSS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District ofAlabama

ORDER FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before DUBINA, ChiefJudge, TJOFLAT, CARNES, BARKETT, HULL

MARCUS, WILSON, PRYOR, MARTIN and JORDAN, CircuitJudges. '

BY THE COURT:

The court having been polled at the request ofone ofthe members ofthe

Court and amajority ofthe Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not

Case: 11-14258 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 1 of 2 
having voted in favor of it(Rule 35, Federal Rules ofAppellate Procedure), the

Suggestion ofRehearing En Banc is DENIED.

Case: 11-14258 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 2 of 2
H. Res. 939 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 2, 2009. 

Whereas, on the morning of November 29, 2009, 4 members 

of the Lakewood Police Department were slain by gunfire 

in a senseless act of violence while preparing for their 

shift in Lakewood, Washington; 

Whereas the 4 officers have been members of the Lakewood 

Police Department since its founding 5 years ago, were 

valuable members of the community, and were deeply respected for their service; 

Whereas Sergeant Mark Renninger who served 13 years in 

law enforcement, first with the Tukwila Police Department and most recently, served with the Lakewood Police 

Department, is survived by his wife and 3 children; 

Whereas Officer Tina Griswold who served 14 years in law 

enforcement, first with the Lacey Police Department and 

most recently, served with the Lakewood Police Department, is survived by her husband and 2 children; 

Whereas Officer Ronald Owens who served 12 years in law 

enforcement, first with the Washington State Patrol and 

most recently, served with the Lakewood Police Department, is survived by his daughter; 

Whereas Officer Greg Richards who served 8 years in law enforcement, first with the Kent Police Department and 
2 

•HRES 939 EH 

most recently, served with the Lakewood Police Department, is survived by his wife and 3 children; 

Whereas the senseless violence against and murder of law enforcement officers, who are sworn to serve, protect, and 

preserve the peace of the communities, is a particularly 

heinous crime; and 

Whereas in the face of this senseless tragedy, the people of 

the City of Lakewood, the surrounding communities, and 

the State of Washington have come together in support 

of the law enforcement community and the victims’ families: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) extends its condolences to the families of Sergeant Mark Renninger, Officer Tina Griswold, Officer 

Ronald Owens, and Officer Greg Richards; and 

(2) stands with the people of Lakewood, Washington, the men and women of the Lakewood Police Department, and members of the law enforcement community as they celebrate the lives and mourn the loss of 

these four dedicated public servants and law enforcement 

heroes. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
EXHIBIT
21


Subsidiaries
of PMA Capital Corporation


As
of December 31, 2009





Pennsylvania
Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company (Pennsylvania)*


Pennsylvania
Manufacturers Indemnity Company (Pennsylvania)*


Manufacturers
Alliance Insurance Company (Pennsylvania)*


PMA
Holdings Ltd. (Bermuda)


Pennsylvania
Manufacturers’ International Insurance Ltd. (Bermuda)


Mid-Atlantic
States Investment Company (Delaware)


PMA
Insurance SPC, Cayman (Cayman)


Midlands
Holding Corporation (Oklahoma)


Midlands
Management Corporation (Oklahoma)


American
Agency System, Inc. (Oklahoma)


Midlands
Claim Administrators, Inc. (Oklahoma)


Midlands
Intermediaries, Inc. (Oklahoma)


Midlands
Management of Texas, Inc. (Texas)


Midlands
Management Corporation of New York (New York)


Midlands
Injury Management, Inc. (Oklahoma)


Underwriters
Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (Texas)


Midlands
Underwriting Managers, Inc. (Texas)


American
Marine Underwriters, Inc. (Texas)


U.S.
Marine Insurance Group, Inc. (Texas)


PMA
Management Corp. (Pennsylvania)


PMA
Management Corp. of New England, Inc. (Connecticut)


PMA
Services Incorporated (Pennsylvania)


PMA One
Benefits, Inc. (Pennsylvania)








* These
subsidiaries do business under the name The PMA Insurance Group.
NO. SCPW-12-0000768
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
CHRISTOPHER GRINDLING, Petitioner,

vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIV. NO. 05-1-0249(3))
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , A c o b a , M c K e n n a , a n d P o l l a c k , J J . )

Upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration of the October 8, 2012 order denying the petition for a writ of mandamus, which was filed on October 16, 2012,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, October 24, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000768 24-OCT-2012 10:52 AM
|   | (i) | the      Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d));      and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | the      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Issuer. |
|--------|------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:      August 3, 2009 |   | /s/      Leonard Goldberg |
|----------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                       |   | Leonard      Goldberg     |
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 3052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1635]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Geological Survey


Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC); Public Meeting of the 
FGDC Facilities Working Group

AGENCY: U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is to invite public participation in a meeting of 
the FGDC Facilities Working Group. The major topic for this meeting is 
the development of a Facility/Installation ID standard.

TIME AND PLACE: 14 February 1996, from 1:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. The 
meeting will be held at Headquarters U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in 
Room 8222D of the Pulaski Building, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC. The Pulaski building is located just a few blocks west 
of Union Station.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Fox, FGDC Secretariat, U.S. 
Geological Survey, 590 National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, 
Reston, Virginia 22092; telephone (703) 648-5514; facsimile (703) 648-
5755; Internet <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ef8f8f888b8caf9a9c889cc1888099">``<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dfb8bbbc9faaacb8acf1b8b0a9">[email protected]</span></a>''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FGDC is a committee of Federal Agencies 
engaged in geospatial activities. The FGDC Facilities Working Group 
specifically focuses on geospatial data issues related to facilities 
and facility management. A facility is an entity with location, 
deliberately established as a site for designated activities. A 
facility database might describe a factory, a military base, a college, 
a hospital, a power plant, a fishery, a national park, an office 
building, a space command center, or a prison. The database for a 
complex facility may describe multiple functions or missions, multiple 
buildings, or even a county, town, or city. The objectives of the 
Working Group are to: promote standards of accuracy and currentness in 
facilities data that are financed in whole or in part by Federal funds; 
exchange information on technological improvements for collecting 
facilities data; encourage the Federal and non-Federal communities to 
identify and adopt standards and specifications for facilities data; 
and promote the sharing of facilities data among Federal and non-
Federal organizations.

    Dated: January 19, 1996.
Richard E. Witmer,
Acting Chief, National Mapping Division.
[FR Doc. 96-1635 Filed 1-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-31-M

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 | P a g e

KESSLER LAW GROUP

Eric W. Kessler, SBN 009158

6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 210

Scottsdale, Arizona 85253

(480) 644-0093 phone

(480) 644-0095 fax

Eric.KesslerLaw@gmail.com

FEDER LAW OFFICE PA

Bruce S. Feder, SBN 004832

2930 E. Camelback Rod., Ste. 160

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

(602) 257-0135 phone

bf@federlawpa.com

Knapp Counsel

Attorneys for Defendant Scott Spear

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, ) No. 2:18-cr-00422-03-PHX-DJH

)

 Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF ERRATA

v. )

Michael Lacey, et al., )

)

) Assigned to Hon. Diane J. Humetewa

)

Defendants. )

Defendant Scott Spear, through counsel, gives notice of an error in Defendant

Spear’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 1588). In said Motion, counsel for the defense indicated 

that the Government had not responded to efforts to discuss the Motion in Limine. 

The prosecution and defense attorneys have complied with this Court’s directive to 

meet and confer regarding all Motions in Limine. As to Defendant Spears’ Motion in 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1601 Filed 06/09/23 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

2 | P a g e

Limine (Doc. 1588), the Government has conveyed to defense counsel that it opposes said 

Motion.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this June 8, 2023.

 /s/ Eric W. Kessler 

Eric W. Kessler, Esq.

Bruce Feder, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant Spear

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 8, 2023, 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/ Eric W. Kessler 

Eric W. Kessler, Esq.

Attorney for Defendant Spear

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1601 Filed 06/09/23 Page 2 of 2