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

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)

 

 Defendant.

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

DEFENDANT PADILLA’S NOTICE OF 

JOINDER IN DEFENDANT LARKIN’S 

RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

UNTIMELY REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

ITS APPLICATION FOR ORDER 

REGARDING CRIMINAL FORFEITURE 

(DOC. 304)

Defendant Andrew Padilla, by and through his undersigned attorney, joins in 

defendant James Larkin’s Response to Government’s Motion for Leave to File Untimely 

Reply in Support of its Application for Order Regarding Criminal Forfeiture (Doc. 304). 

Defendant Padilla agrees with the arguments made in defendant Larkin’s Response. 

Defendant Padilla adopts the positions set forth in said Response as if fully set forth herein. 

The issues raised in the Response apply with equal force to Mr. Padilla.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 18th day of September, 2018.

PICCARRETA DAVIS KEENAN FIDEL PC

By: /s/ Michael L. Piccarreta

Michael L. Piccarreta

Attorney for Andrew Padilla

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 309 Filed 09/18/18 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

On September 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

Margaret Perlmeter, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov

Kevin Rapp, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Andrew Stone, andrew.stone@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 309 Filed 09/18/18 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel GARCIA-DE LA TORRE, also known as Alejandro Lopez, also known as Miguel Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50257.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Miguel Garcia-De La Torre appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea *423conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Garcia-De La Torre complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Garcia-De La Torre thus contends that his sentence should not exceed the two-year maximum terms of imprisonment and supervised release prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

In *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. • The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Garcia-De La Torre acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *AlmendarezTorres,*but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.

*Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This court must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *Dabeit,*231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
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)

 

 Defendants.

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

DEFENDANT PADILLA’S JOINDER IN

DEFENDANTS MICHAEL LACEY AND 

JAMES LARKIN’S MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME (DOC. 147) TO 

RESPOND TO THE GOVERNMENT’S

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL 

(DOC. 118)

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

a result of this motion or an order based thereon, as explained more fully below.

Defendant Andrew Padilla joins in defendants Michael Lacey and James 

Larkin’s Motion for Extension of Time (First Request) (Doc. 147) to respond to the 

government’s pending Motion to Disqualify Counsel (Doc. 118), and requests that the 

deadline for all defendants’ responses be extended to June 6, 2018.

Additional time is needed to complete the research and properly prepare the 

response. This defendant’s response will focus on the implications to the Fifth and Sixth 

Amendments to the United States Constitution and the impact as to all of the defendants 

if the government’s motion is granted. Additionally, since the response deadline for the 

law firm of Henze Cook Murphy PLLC has been extended to June 6, 2018, it seems to 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 160 Filed 05/23/18 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

make sense that all responses be due on the same date so that the same motion and 

issues are on the same time schedule and the government can simultaneously respond 

to all responses in its reply.

WHEREFORE, it is requested that the response time for all defendants to 

respond to the government’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel (Doc. 118) be extended 

until June 6, 2018.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 23rd day of May, 2018.

PICCARRETA DAVIS KEENAN FIDEL PC

By: /s/ Michael L. Piccarreta

Michael L. Piccarreta

Attorney for Andrew Padilla

On May 23, 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:

Kevin Rapp, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Tom Bienert (via email: tbienert@bmkattorneys.com) 

Paul Cambria (via email: pcambria@lglaw.com) 

Bruce Feder (via email: bf@federlawpa.com; fl@federlawpa.com) 

Mike Kimerer (via email: mdk@kimerer.com) 

Gary Lincenberg (via email: gsl@birdmarella.com) 

KC Maxwell (via email: kcm@kcmaxlaw.com) 

Steve Weiss (via email: sweiss@karpweiss.com)

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 160 Filed 05/23/18 Page 2 of 2
EX-10.W






Exhibit 10(w)


KAYE FOSTER – CHEEK

Executive Committee Member

Vice President, Human Resources



 Johnson & Johnson





One Johnson & Johnson Plaza

New Brunswick, NJ 08550




February 19, 2009




Mr. Alex Gorsky

Worldwide Chairman, Surgical Care Group

Executive Committee Member

Johnson & Johnson

One Johnson & Johnson Plaza

New Brunswick, NJ 08933



Dear Alex:



The forgoing shall reconfirm the mutual understanding between you and Johnson & Johnson (the
“Company”) regarding the terms of your severance arrangement, originally agreed to in your offer
letter dated January 9, 2008.



If the Company terminates your employment, other than for cause, within two years from February 11,
2008, the date you rejoined the Company, you shall be offered, in return for your execution of a
general release, a severance payment in an amount determined in accordance with the Johnson &
Johnson Severance Pay Plan, which severance payment shall be, however, in a minimum amount equal to
one year of base salary. In addition, the Company will make a payment to you, upon execution of a
general release, equal to one year of base salary in the event that you resign upon the Company’s
requirement that you relocate your employment outside the New Jersey-Eastern Pennsylvania area
within two years of February 11, 2008 without your consent. Any payment pursuant to this letter
agreement shall not be subject to mitigation or right of set-off, but shall be subject to
appropriate taxes and withholdings.



Upon your acceptance of this letter agreement, the foregoing will replace and supercede all
previous agreements, either written or oral, regarding the terms of your severance arrangement.
Please signify your acceptance of the terms of this letter agreement by signing one copy of this
letter agreement and returning it to me. If you have any questions concerning this letter
agreement, please feel free to give me a call.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Sincerely,



/s/ Kaye Foster-Cheek

 
KAYE FOSTER-CHEEK

Executive Committee Member

Vice President, Human Resources


 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 



	 	 	 
	cc:

	 	M. Ullmann
	 

	 	L. Uthgenannt
	 

	 	D. Ng






Alex Gorsky

February 19, 2009

Page 2 of 2



Agreed & Accepted:




	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Alex Gorsky

	 	February 19, 2009
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Signature

	 	Date
Exhibit B

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 269-2 Filed 08/17/18 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 269-2 Filed 08/17/18 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 269-2 Filed 08/17/18 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 269-2 Filed 08/17/18 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 269-2 Filed 08/17/18 Page 5 of 5
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7074
ROUNTREE RILEY GOODMON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HOWARD PAINTER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-99-130-3) Submitted: September 27, 2002 Decided: October 16, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rountree Riley Goodmon, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Rountree Riley Goodmon appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and conclude that Goodmon’s claims are subject to dismissal because he failed to seek authorization in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2000), prior to filing his successive petition in the district court. Tyler v. Cain , 533 U.S. 656, 667 (2001). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – PHOENIX

U.S. District Judge: Diane J. Humetewa Date: September 28, 2023

USA v. Michael Lacey, et al Case Number: CR-18-00422-PHX-DJH

Assistant U.S. Attorneys: Kevin Rapp, Austin Berry, Margaret Perlmeter, Andrew Stone, Peter 

Kozinets

Attorneysfor Defendants: Paul J. Cambria Jr., Retained for Defendant Lacey, present; Bruce S. Feder, 

Retained (Knapp) and Eric W. Kessler, CJA for Defendant Spear, present; Gary S. Lincenberg and Gopi 

K. Panchapakesan, Retained for Defendant Brunst, present; David S. Eisenberg, CJA for Defendant 

Padilla, present; Joy M. Bertrand, CJA for Defendant Vaught, present.

Defendants: ☒ Present ☐ Not Present ☒ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons ☐ Writ

JURY TRIAL (Day 14):

8:49 a.m. Court reconvenes. Discussion held with counsel. 8:56 a.m. Jury present. Carl Ferrer 

examined further. Exhibit 886a is admitted. 10:31 a.m. Jury exits courtroom. 10:42 a.m. Recess.

10:57 a.m. Court reconvenes. Jury present. Witness examined further. Exhibits 8, 5364, 5427, 5459, 

5443, 5415, 1214a, 5474, and 6196 are admitted. 12:14 p.m. Recess.

1:01 p.m. Court reconvenes. Jury present. Witness examined further. 1:27 p.m. Cross-Examination by 

Mr. Eisenberg. 2:38 p.m. Recess.

3:00 p.m. Court reconvenes. Jury present. Witness examined further. Exhibits 581, 51, 51a, 59, and 

61 are admitted. 4:37 p.m. Jury exits courtroom. Discussion held with counsel. 4:40 p.m. Court in 

recess until Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.

Court Reporter Jennifer Pancratz/Teri Veres

Deputy Clerk Liliana Figueroa

Start: 8:49 AM

Stop: 4:40 PM

Total: 6hrs 27min

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1821 Filed 09/28/23 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 120 (Thursday, June 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 31558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15780]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Geosciences: Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Geosciences (1756).
    Date & Time: July 9 and July 10, 1996; 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: Room 680, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Richard A. Behnke, Head, Upper Atmosphere 
Research Section; Division of Atmospheric Sciences; Room 775; 4201 
Wilson Boulevard; Arlington, VA 22230; telephone number (703) 306-
1518.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide and make recommendations 
concerning the National Space Weather Program (NSWP) proposals.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate the National Space Weather 
Program (NSWP) proposals.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data, and personal information 
concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters 
are exempted under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government 
in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: June 17, 1996.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-15780 Filed 6-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
##### 



EXHIBIT
32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant, to which this
certificate is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m(a)); and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
  /s/ F. Stephen MillerF. Stephen Miller, Chairman of the Board ofDirectors and Chief Executive Officer
  (3)
    
    the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant, to which this
certificate is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m(a)); and(4)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
  /s/ M. Shellie FugateM. Shellie Fugate, Chief Financial Officer
 Page24
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

Scott Spear, )

)

Defendant. )

NO. CR18-00422 PHX SMB-003

ORDER

THIS COURT, having considered Defendant Spear’s Motion for extension of

time to file reply to the government’s response to Defendant’s Amended Motion for

Issuance of Rule 17(c) Subpoenas, and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant Spear’s Defendant Spear’s Motion for

extension of time to file reply to the government’s response to Defendant’s Amended

Motion for Issuance of Rule 17(c) Subpoenas;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending the deadline for Defendant Spears

to file reply to the government’s response to Defendant’s Amended Motion for

Issuance of Rule 17(c) Subpoenas to July 13, 2020.

DATED this _____ day of July, 2020.

______________________________________

THE HONORABLE SUSAN M. BRNOVICH

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1034-1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 1 of 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 

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 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS 

CURIAE BRIEF 

Having reviewed the DKT Liberty Project, Cato Institute, and Reason Foundation’s 

Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. Doc. 619.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amicus Curiae Brief, 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 623 Filed 05/30/19 Page 1 of 1
#### Charles CHAMBERS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 68777.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 11, 1996.

Deborah B. Wafer, Eastern Dist'. Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David R. Truman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

KAROHL, Judge.

Charles Chambers (movant) appeals a denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post conviction relief. He pled guilty to two counts of second degree burglary and two counts of stealing over one hundred and fifty dollars. The court found he was a prior and persistent and class X offender and sentenced him to five years imprisonment for each count to be served concurrently, but consecutively to an unrelated sentence he was serving when he tendered the pleas. We affirm.

Movant filed a motion for post conviction relief to remove class X designation from all sentences. The motion court granted relief on the stealing charges but denied relief on the burglary charges after finding they were dangerous felonies under § 556.061(8) RSMo Cum.Supp.1993.

Movant contends the motion court erred by improperly sentencing him as a class X offender as to his burglary second degree convictions. He claims under § 1.160 RSMo 1994, he should receive the benefit of newly amended § 556.061(8) RSMo 1994 which eliminated burglary from the list of dangerous felonies.

We review in accord with Rule 24.035 and *Hamilton v. State,*865 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Mo.App. E.D.1993). Class X offender status applied only to class A and B felonies and dangerous felonies as defined in § 556.061(8) RSMo 1994. Prior to August 28, 1994, burglary was defined as a “dangerous felony” regardless of degree, felony class, or the presence of actual danger to a person other than the defendant. Section 556.061(8) RSMo 1993; *Johnson v. State,*854 S.W.2d 539, 541 (Mo.App. E.D.1993); and *McPherson v. State,*818 S.W.2d 708, 709-710 (Mo.App.1991). Effective August 28, 1994, the Missouri legislature amended § 556.061 to exclude burglary as a dangerous felony. Section 556.061(8) RSMo 1994.

Movant was sentenced one month before the effective date of the 1994 amendment which provides “if the penalty or punishment for any offense is reduced or lessened by any alteration of the law creating the offense prior to original sentencing, the penalty or punishment shall be assessed according to the amendatory law.” Section 1.160 RSMo 1994. Section 1.160 RSMo 1994 allows a movant to benefit from an amended statute only if the statute’s effective date is prior to the original sentencing. *State v. Dean,*898 *562S.W.2d 704, 707 (Mo.App. W.D.1995); *State v. Davis,*867 S.W.2d 539, 542 (Mo.App. W.D.1993).

Here, movant was sentenced on July 25, 1994. The effective date of the amendment to § 556.061(8) was August 28, 1994, one month after sentencing. The amendment does not apply to movant.

We affirm.

REINHARD, P.J., and GRIMM, J., concur.
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | UV FLU TECHNOLOGIES, INC |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   |                     |   |   |
|   | By:                      | /s/ John J. Lennon |   |
|   | Name:                    | John J. Lennon |
|   | Title:                   | President, Chief Financial Officer and |
|   |                     | Chairman of the Board |
|   |                     | (Principal Executive Officer) |

|   | By:    | /s/ John J. Lennon                         |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  | John J. Lennon                             |
|   | Title: | President, Chief Financial Officer and     |
|   |   | Chairman of the Board                      |
|   |   | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal |
|   |   | Accounting Officer)                        |

----