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

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Joye Vaught,

Defendant.

No. CR-18-0422-07-PHX-DJH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Appear by 

Phone or Videoconference (Doc. 1698). Defense counsel requests that Defendant Vaught 

be permitted to appear by phone or teleconference for the August 18, 2023, Frye/Cooper

hearing stating that:

Ms. Vaught lives in the Dallas, Texas area. Round-trip airfare to Phoenix 

and lodging would cost approximately $1,000 before ground transportation 

– a considerable expense for Ms. Vaught, who remains indigent. The Court 

has allowed Ms. Vaught to appear at prior final pretrial conferences and other 

substantive hearings by phone. Ms. Vaught can be available by phone or 

videoconferencing for the August 18, 2023 hearings.

(Id. at 2). Upon good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Appear by Phone or 

Videoconference (Doc. 1698). Defendant may appear telephonically for the scheduled 

Frye/Cooper hearing set August 18, 2023, at 11:30 a.m. before Judge Fine in courtroom 

303. Defense counsel will receive dial-in instructions via separate electronic 

communication.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1704 Filed 08/16/23 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

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

Dated this 16th day of August, 2023.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1704 Filed 08/16/23 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

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,

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 

 Defendants.

Case No. 2:18-CR-00422-PHX-SMB

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court, having reviewed Defendants’ Motion for Stay of Case Pending Resolution of 

the Mandamus Petition, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the case is stayed pending the Ninth 

Circuit’s determination of the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in case number 20-73408.

DATED this day of , 20 .

 

HON. SUSAN M. BRNOVICH

United States District Court Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1092-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 1 of 1
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 978 

Requesting the President to transmit to the House of Representatives all 

documents in the possession of the President relating to the inventory 

and review of intelligence related to the shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, 

described by the President in a memorandum dated November 10, 2009. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 16, 2009 

Mr. HOEKSTRA submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select) 

RESOLUTION 

Requesting the President to transmit to the House of Representatives all documents in the possession of the President relating to the inventory and review of intelligence 

related to the shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, described 

by the President in a memorandum dated November 

10, 2009. 

1 Resolved, That the President is requested to transmit 

2 to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days 

3 after the adoption of this resolution all documents (includ4 ing records, memos, correspondence, or other communica5 tions) in the possession of the President that refer or re6 late to the inventory and review of intelligence related to 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 978 IH 

1 the shooting on November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, Texas, 

2 described by the President in a memorandum dated No3 vember 10, 2009. 

Æ 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Eric L. BYINGTON, Ralph Byington, and Dorothy Byington, Petitioners/Respondents, v. Michelle D. BORGEMEYER, Respondent/Appellant, and Wesley Joel Scott, a minor, Respondent.

No. 67217.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 21, 1995.

*787Richard Smith, Louisiana, for appellant.

John M. Mcllroy, Mcllroy and Millan, Bowling Green, for respondent.

KAROHL, Judge.

We granted mother leave to file a late appeal from a judgment in a paternity suit filed by father and his parents. Father and his parents have elected not to participate in the appeal.

Prior to trial the parties entered into an extended well considered settlement agreement which resolved all but two issues. The parties submitted “upon oral argument of counsel” those two issues to the trial court for its determination. In resolving those issues the trial court ordered the birth certificate for the child amended to reflect the father’s name as the child’s surname and denied joint legal custody. It awarded custody to the mother.

Mother now argues that an administrative decision of the Department of Social Services which determined paternity bars this lawsuit by application of the doctrine of res judicata. The contention that the trial court erred in this respect is without merit. Though mother pled res judicata in her answer, she subsequently entered into a settlement agreement with father. The settlement disposed of all issues with the exception of two. They were (1) name change on birth certificate and (2) joint legal custody. Thus, the issue of res judicata was never argued and not decided by the trial court. “A court is not responsible for an error on an issue which was not presented for a ruling.” *Cooks v. Normandy School District,*778 S.W.2d 339, 341 (Mo.App.1989). She pled and abandoned the claim.

Res judicata is not a jurisdictional doctrine. It is an affirmative defense which mother initially pled but subsequently ignored in the settlement agreement. Thus, mother did not submit res judicata as an issue for the trial court’s decision. Further, mother’s contention that the trial court erred in refusing a motion to dismiss is deficient because the motion to dismiss was based only on an allegation that the petition failed to state a cause of action. That allegation was resolved by mother’s settlement agreement and the decree which accepted and implemented the agreement. The trial court resolved the two disputed issues following the procedure determined by the parties in the settlement agreement.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.13(b).

REINHARD, P.J., and RONNIE L. WHITE, Special Judge, concur.
---

Exhibit 32

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 Annual
Report of Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. (Net1) on Form 10-K for the period
ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), Serge Belamant and Herman Kotze, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Net1, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, that to their knowledge:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      and            
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                          
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Net1.

|Date: August 26, 2010 | /s/: Serge Belamant                   
|--------------------- | --------------------------------------
|                      | Name: Serge Belamant                  
|                      | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman  
|                      | of the Board                          
|                      |                                       
|Date: August 26, 2010 | /s/: Herman Kotze                     
|                      | Name: Herman Kotze                    
|                      | Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
|                      | Secretary                             

---
Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed March 5, 2013.



### In The 

## nurI nfAppIit% FifI1i t1itrirt 

## nf LLxa; it 

## Ji1ku No. 05-11-01318-CR 

### TERRILL MIDDLETON, Appellant V. 

### THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee OnAppeal from the 282ndJudicial DistrictCourt Dallas County. Texas Trial CourtCauseNo. FlO-72351-S 

### MEMORANDM OPINION Beft)reJustices FitzGerald, Fillmore, and Evans Opinion byJustice Evans Abandoning his initial llea ofnot guilty, Terrill Middleton pleaded no contest to the charge ofaggravated assault with a deadly weapon. As fact finder in the case, the trial court convicted appellant and sentenced him to ten years’ confinement. Appellant complains in two issues thatthe trial court erred in considering extraneous offense evidence atpunishment and the judgment incorrectly reflects his plea. We modify thejudgment to reflect appellant’s plea ofno contest. As modified, we affirm the trial court’sjudgment. The background ofthe case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties, and therefore we limit recitation ofthe facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule ofAppellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied inthe case is well settled.In his first issue, appellant complains the trial court erred when it considered extraneous offense evidence at punishment that had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Because appellant ne\er objected to the trial courts admission or consideration of evidence pertaining to the offenses, however, he has forfeited his right to complain about them on appeal. See TEx. R. App. P. S3.l(). ()nce the evidence was admitted without objection, it could be considered for all purpoSeS.
. 5 e’ Zumora v. State, 375 S.W.3d 382, 396 (Tex. App.

——--Flouston 14th 1)1st.

### 1 2014, pet. struck). We resolve appellant’s first issue againsthim. Appellant next complains the udgment in his ease incorrectly states that his plea was not guilty, rather than no contest. The State agrees that the judgment should he modified to accurately reflect appellant’s plea. We modify thejudgment to reflect that appellant entered a plea ofno contest. See Trx. R APP. P. 43 .lsherri i. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529—3D (Tex. App.

—--Dallas I991, pet. refd). As modified, we affirmthe trial court’sjudgment.

Do ISot Publish TEx. R. App. P. 47 11 1318F.U05 EVANS ‘TICE

## QL1IIrI ofAppczth 

## FiftIi Jhtrirt of Lixu it 

## Jt1ku JUDGMENT MIDDLETON, TERRILL, Appellant No.05-I 1-013 tX-CR 

### V. lHE STATE ()FFEXAS, Appellee On Appeal fromthe 282nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. Fl0-72351-S. Opinion deliveredby Justice Evans. Justices FitzGerald and Fillmore participating. Based on the Courts opinion ofthis date. thejudgment ofthe trial court is MO1)IFIEI) to reflect appellantentered aplea oFno contest.
As MODIFIED thejudgmcnt is AFFIRMFD
Judgment entered this 5th (lay ofMarch, 2013.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32784-32785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16146]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Available Surplus Real Property at Camp Bonneville, Located in 
Clark County, WA

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice identified the surplus real property located at 
Camp Bonneville, located in Clark County, Washington Camp Bonneville is 
located approximately 10 miles northeast of Vancouver, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Management and Disposal Branch, Real Estate Division, U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers, Seattle District, P.O. Box 3755, Seattle, WA 98124-2255; 
Mrs. Lynn Walters, Realty Specialist;

[[Page 32785]]

Telephone: 206-764-3745; fax: 206-764-6579.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This surplus property is available under the 
provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
1949 and the Base Closure Community Development and Homeless Assistance 
Act of 1994. Notices of interest should be forwarded to Janice Davin, 
LRA Coordinator, Clark County Department of Public Works, P.O. Box 
9810, Vancouver, WA 98666-9810, Telephone 360-6118, ext. 4330.
    The surplus real property totals 3,020 acres, more or less and 
includes 74 buildings. The total space for all buildings is 
approximately 60,565 square feet. The current use is as a U.S. Army 
Active and Reserve training installation.
Gregory D. Showalter,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-16146 Filed 6-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-ER-M
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 973 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 145
111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 973

                          [Report No. 111-379]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 15, 2009

    Ms. Pingree of Maine, from the Committee on Rules, reported the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported on the legislative day of December 16, 2009.
                                                 House Calendar No. 145

111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 973

                          [Report No. 111-379]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           December 15, 2009

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
#### Finis WILSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 10-91-037-CR, 10-91-038-CR and 10-91-039-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

July 7, 1993.

Bruno A. Shimek, Bryan, for appellant.

Bill R. Turner, Dist. Atty., Margaret Lalk, Ass’t Dist. Atty., Bryan, for appellee.

Before THOMAS, C.J., and CUMMINGS and VANCE, JJ.

OPINION ON REMAND

PER CURIAM.

On original submission we affirmed Finis Wilson’s convictions for two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of attempted aggravated robbery, and one count of rob*863bery.1 The Court of Criminal Appeals granted Wilson’s petitions for discretionary review to decide whether we erred in holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the jurors to submit written questions to the trial court. Subsequently, a majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals in *Morrison v. State*held that the practice of allowing jurors to ask questions of witnesses is error.2 As a result, they vacated the judgment of this court in *Wilson*and remanded the case to us for reconsideration in light of their opinion in Morrison.3

In *Morrison*the Court of Criminal Appeals held that “the practice of permitting jurors to become active participants in the solicitation of evidence by questioning witnesses is not subject to a harm analysis.”4 Consequently, we sustain point of error two in cause no. 19,786-272, point of error three in cause no. 19,789-272, and point of error one in cause no. 19,933-272.

We reverse the judgments and remand the causes for a new trial.

1

. *Wilson v. State,*823 S.W.2d 777, 781-82 (Tex.App.—Waco 1992) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the jury to ask questions of the witnesses) (citing *Morrison*v. *State,*815 S.W.2d 766, 767-69 (Tex.App.—Waco 1991) (declining to ban the practice of allowing jurors to ask questions, but holding that "the inherent danger that the state will use a juror’s question to gain an unfair advantage in the presentation of its case requires the closest scrutiny of the trial court’s discretion whenever it allows jurors to pose questions to witnesses.”)).

2

. 845 S.W.2d 882, 889 (Tex.Crim.App.1992).

3

. *Wilson v. State,*845 S.W.2d 908, 908-09 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).

4

. *See Morrison,*845 S.W.2d at 889. Although Judge Miller’s concurring opinion in *Morrison*does not clearly indicate whether he joined the majority on "the harm analysis question” or merely on "the issue concerning the practice of allowing juror questions,” his subsequent opinion in *Allen v. State,*845 S.W.2d 907, 907 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), removes any ambiguity that might have existed with regard to the scope of the court’s holding in *Morrison.*We note that in *Allen,*however, the Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the case to the trial court rather than the court of appeals, as it did in this case.
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – PHOENIX

U.S. District Judge: Susan M. Brnovich Date: January 4, 2021

USA v. Lacey et al Case Number: CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB

Defendant-1: Michael Lacey, Released-Present

Attorney for Defendant (1): Paul Cambria, Jr., and Erin McCampbell, Retained

Defendant-2: James Larkin, Released-Present

Attorney for Defendant (2): Thomas Bienert, Jr., Retained

Defendant-3: Scott Spear, Released-Present

Attorney for Defendant (3): Bruce Feder, Retained 

Defendant-4: John Brunst, Released-Present 

Attorney for Defendant (4): Gopi Panchapakesan and Gary Lincenberg, Retained

Defendant-6: Andrew Padilla, Released-Presence Waived

Attorney for Defendant (6): David Eisenberg, CJA Appointment

Defendant-7: Joye Vaught, Released-Presence Waived

Attorney for Defendant (7): Joy Bertrand, CJA Appointment

TELEPHONIC STATUS HEARING:

All present parties appear telephonically. Discussion held regarding the Petition for Writ of Mandamus 

filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Counsel for Defendant Larkin, with co-defendants joining, 

requests the Court to either issue a stay and/or continue the current trial date pending ruling from the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The request for stay is denied based on the Courts’ previous ruling (Doc. 

1097). Defendants are directed to file a written motion to continue the trial to allow the Government an 

opportunity to file a response. 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys: Peter Kozinets, Margaret Perlmeter, Kevin Rapp, Andrew Stone, Daniel

Boyle, and Reginald Jones

Court Reporter Christine Coaly 

Deputy Clerk Elaine Garcia

Start: 11:20 a.m.

Stop: 11:35 a.m.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1108 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 1
Hardesty



### b.lot Parraguirre preliminary injunction is moot because the foreclosure sale has been completed. See Personhood Nevada v. Bristol, 126 Nev. _ 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010).

Concerning appellant's quiet title cause of action, this claim is properly dismissed against these respondents because they no longer have an interest in the property. Therefore, they are not proper defendants in a quiet title action.' See Schwob v. Hemsath, 98 Nev. 293, 294, 646 P.2d 1212, 1212 (1982) (holding that the legal owner of a property was a necessary party to an action adjudicating title to the property). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2

'The district court dismissed appellant's quiet title cause of action after finding that he lacked standing. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to appellant, it appears that he had standing to assert the quiet title cause of action because he alleged that he was a co-owner of the property. Nevertheless, because appellant did not name the proper parties in seeking to quiet title in this action and he has since filed a separate quiet title action against the purchaser of the property, dismissal of this cause of action was proper. Rosenstein v. Steele, 103 Nev. 571, 575, 747 P.2d 230, 233 (1987).

2 1n light of this order, we deny Montessa, LLC's February 21, 2013, motion to consolidate this case with Centento v. Montessa, LLC, Docket No. 62506.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge Martin Centeno Houser & Allison, APC Tiffany & Bosco, P. A. Greenberg Traurig, LLP/Las Vegas Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

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

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, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

NO. CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

 

Upon Motion of the Defendant, with good cause appearing and with no objection 

from the Government, 

IT IS ORDERED granting Attorney Paul J. Cambria, Jr., leave to appear by 

[phone/videoconferencing] at the March 20, 2023 Hearing in this matter. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Paul J. Cambria, Jr. shall [call 602-

______/log in to the Court’s videoconferencing system at www._______________] at 2:55 

P.M. March 20, 2023. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1529-1 Filed 03/13/23 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

SO ORDERED this _______ day of ___________, 2023. 

 ___________________________ 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1529-1 Filed 03/13/23 Page 2 of 2