alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997 
<CASH>                                         183,337
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,402<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,741
<INVENTORY>                                      2,428
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               247,068
<PP&E>                                         273,960
<DEPRECIATION>                                 101,544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 598,679
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,441
<BONDS>                                        110,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,970
<OTHER-SE>                                     318,790
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   598,679
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,854
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,849<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,327
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,460
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (45,253)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (11,907)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (32,065)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,210) 
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (35,275)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.64)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.64)<F2>
        
<FN>
<F1>Receivables and total costs have been restated to conform with the December 
1997 reporting format.
<F2>EPS has been restated to give effect to a two for one stock split payable in
the form of a 100% stock dividend, declared in March 1998 for stockholders of 
record on March 20, 1998, with a distribution date of April 3, 1998.
</FN> 

</TABLE>
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50395 Conference Calendar

__________________ DWAYNE LAVAUGHN DUSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY PAINTER, Sheriff of Midland County, Texas; JIM CHANCELLOR; VIRGINIA STRICKLAND, Nurse, Medical Administrator for Midland County Detention Center, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-94-CV-179

- - - - - - - - - - December 21, 1995 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Dwayne Duson appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous. Duson contends that the medical staff and administration of the Midland County, Texas, jail were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs because they failed to treat him for scabies during his stay in the jail. It is unclear from the record whether Duson was a convictedNo. 95-50395 -2- prisoner or a pretrial detainee during his stay in the Midland County jail. We have reviewed the reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's report, which was adopted by the district court, and find no arguable abuse of discretion regarding the dismissal of Duson's Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference contention. Additionally, Duson's allegations at most give rise to a contention that the jail medical staff was negligent. Duson's medical care was not sufficiently unreasonable to violate the Fourteenth Amendment if Duson was a pretrial detainee. Ortega v. Rowe , 796 F.2d 765, 767-68 (5th Cir. 1986), cert. denied , 481 U.S. 1013 (1987). Finally, Duson's motion for appointment of counsel on remand of his case to the district court is moot and is DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Michael Lacey,

Defendant.

No. CR-18-00422-001-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

In addition to the issues referenced in the Court’s prior Orders (Docs. 1650 & 1654),

the parties shall come prepared to discuss the following at the hearing set for Friday, August 

4, 2023:

1. What progress defense counsel has made, if any, to identify a new data housing 

system and Trial Director “hot seat” person;

2. Whether the parties are agreeable to a shorter trial;

3. Whether the parties are willing to shorten the length of the juror questionnaires and 

if so, which questions they would agree to remove.

Dated this 3rd day of August, 2023.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1667 Filed 08/03/23 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 of Sally Holdings LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark J. Flaherty, Chief Financial 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/ Mark J. Flaherty |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|
|   | Mark J. Flaherty                                       |
|   | Senior Vice President   and Chief Financial Officer of |
|   | Sally Holdings LLC                                     |

 

 

May 5, 2011

 

----
Exhibit D 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-4 Filed 04/25/18 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-4 Filed 04/25/18 Page 2 of 2 Case 1:16-mc-00621-RMC Document 6 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 1
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 Annual Report of Commonwealth Biotechnologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
31, 2005 (the Report), I Robert B. Harris, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 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.



|               |  |                                      
|-------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|March 30, 2005 |  | /s/ Robert B. Harris, Ph.D.          
|               |  | Robert B. Harris, Ph.D.              
|               |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Barry HENDRIX, Appellant.

No. WD 40178.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 18, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 30, 1989.

*711Larry C. Pace, Kansas City, for Appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for Respondent.

Before MANFORD, P.J., and TURNAGE and LOWENSTEIN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from a sentence of 30 years as a prior and dangerous offender, § 558.016, RSMo 1986,. for assault in the first degree, § 565.050, RSMo 1986, and from a judgment denying relief under Rule 29.15.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Fred NEISTAT, et al., Defendants/Appellants, v. R. JACOBS, Plaintiff/Respondent.

No. 65785.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 18, 1995.

Alan Scott Mandel, St. Louis, for appellant.

Richard Jacobs, St. Louis, pro se.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendants, Fred and Carol Neistat, appeal from a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff, Richard Jacobs, on his petition for negligence and breach of contract. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find no error of law. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF MITTAL STEEL COMPANY N.V.S CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13(a)-14(b)
UNDER THE

EXCHANGE ACT AND SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED

STATES CODE

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of Mittal Steel Company N.V. (the
Company) for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Mr. Lakshmi N. Mittal, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Mr. Aditya Mittal, as
Chief Financial Officer, Member of the Group Management Board, Flat Products Americas of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  | 
|--------------------- |  | 
|/s/ LAKSHMI N. MITTAL |  | 
|Mr. Lakshmi N. Mittal |  | 

Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Mittal Steel
Company N.V.

|            
|------------
|July 3, 2007



|                  |  | 
|----------------- |  | 
|/s/ ADITYA MITTAL |  | 
|Mr. Aditya Mittal |  | 

Chief Financial Officer, Member of the Group Management Board, Flat Products
Americas of Mittal Steel Company N.V.

|            
|------------
|July 3, 2007

This certification is furnished as an exhibit to the Report and accompanies the Report pursuant to Rule
13(a)-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act.
Order entered April 1 6 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 19
- 00201
- CV
RICHARD RALEY AND RA LEY HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellant s V. DANIEL K. HAGOOD, P. C. AND FITZPATRI CK HAGOOD SMITH & UHL, LLP, Appellee s On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 17
- 00390
- B

ORDER Before the Court is appellees’ written verification of payment for the supplemental clerk’s record they req uested January 15, 2020

. Accordingly, we ORDER Dallas County Clerk John F. Warren to file the supplemental record no later than April 2 7 , 2020.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Mr. Warren and the parties.
/s/ BILL WHITEHIL L JUSTICE
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

ASHLEY YVONNE PARKER, ) DOC #S27798, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-5238 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed April 3, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Charles E. Roberts, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Gary R. Gossett, Jr., Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Chelsea S. Alper, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JASPAL SINGH BAL, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-72596 

Agency No. A098-752-208 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 19, 2021**

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Jaspal Singh Bal, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand

and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding him 

removable and denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-72596 

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to 

remand. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the 

petition for review.

In his opening brief, Bal does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he 

waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal based on the 

determination that he was convicted of a particularly serious crime. See LopezVasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically 

raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Bal also does not 

challenge the determination that he was removable as charged or the denial of 

deferral of removal under CAT. See id. Thus, we deny the petition for review as 

to removability, withholding of removal and relief under CAT . 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bal’s motion to remand to 

consider new evidence for deferral of removal under CAT, where he failed to 

demonstrate that the evidence he submitted was previously unavailable and could 

not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(c)(1); see also Movsisian, 395 F.3d at 1097-98 (a motion to reopen, filed 

while an appeal is pending before the BIA, is treated as a motion to remand).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### James Leroy NICHOLS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 42660.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 10, 1990.

Janet M. Thompson, Columbia, for mov-ant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before MANFORD, P.J., and KENNEDY and ULRICH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Direct appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief sought pursuant to Rule 24.-035.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 1A

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 531-1 Filed 04/17/19 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 531-1 Filed 04/17/19 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 531-1 Filed 04/17/19 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 531-1 Filed 04/17/19 Page 4 of 4
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

2AO 435

AZ Form (Rev. )

1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE

4. FIRM NAME

5. MAILING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE 8. ZIP CODE

9. CASE NUMBER 10. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

11. 12. 

13. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

14. 15. STATE

16. ORDER FOR

APPEAL CRIMINAL

NON-APPEAL CIVIL

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER 6SHFLI\

17. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested)

PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)

TESTIMONY (6SHFLI\

PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING

OTHER (6SHFLI\)

VOIR DIRE

OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

OPINION OF COURT

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

SENTENCING

BAIL HEARING

18. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL + 1

(original to Court,

copy to ordering party)

FIRST

COPY

# OF

ADDITIONAL

COPIES

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(&heck all that apply) ESTIMATED COSTS

30 DAYS  

PAPER COPY

3')HPDLO

$6&,,HPDLO

14 DAYS  

7 DAYSH[SHGLWHG  

DAILY

 

HOURLY

 

REALTIME

 

E-MAIL ADDRESS

NOTE: IF ORDERING 025(7+$121()250$7,

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE. 19. SIGNATURE

20. DATE

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY

ESTIMATE TOTAL

PROCESSED BY PHONE NUMBER

ORDER RECEIVED DATE BY

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES

TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE

DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY

'$<6

CERTIFICATION (19. & 20.)By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional). (deposit plus additiona

Isaiah Poritz 801-828-6680 9/29/2023

Bloomberg Industry Group

1801 S. Bell Street Arlington VA 22202

2:18-cr-00422 Diane Humetewa 8/29/2023 11/09/2023

USA v. lacey et al Phoenix Arizona

✔

✔ Full day of trial and testimony

✔

for each day of trial

✔

iporitz@bloombergindustry.com

9/29/2023

✔

✔

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1823 Filed 09/29/23 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HEIDELBERG PRINT FINANCE

AMERICAS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08-14677

-vs- Hon: AVERN COHN

CLASSIC AND ASSOCIATES,

INCORPORATED and NORTHERN

CROSS CAPITAL, LLC,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

This is an action to recover machinery leased by plaintiff to defendants. Defendants

defaulted on lease payments. Plaintiff was entitled to possession. Unfortunately for

plaintiff, Oakland County seized and sold the machinery before plaintiff was able to

repossess. All this happened in 2004 (Doc. 3). Because defendants were insolvent,

plaintiff did not pursue the case. However, no order of dismissal was entered. It now

appears that the Oakland County Treasurer has on hand $31,000.00 which represents the

excess of the amount received at the sale of the machinery over what was owed plaintiff.

This excess belongs to plaintiff as owner of the machinery.

2:08-cv-14677-AC-RSW Doc # 13 Filed 03/20/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 194
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, the Oakland County Treasurer is directed to pay the excess of the

proceeds received from the sale of the machinery to plaintiff. After payment of the excess,

plaintiff shall notify the Court and submit an order of dismissal.

SO ORDERED.

 s/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 20, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record

on this date, March 20, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:08-cv-14677-AC-RSW Doc # 13 Filed 03/20/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 195
ex10138a.htm


    AIRCRAFT
CONFIGURATION

    


    between

    


    THE
BOEING COMPANY

    


    and

    


    AMERICAN
AIRLINES, INC.

    


    


    Exhibit A
to Purchase Agreement Number 3219

    



    
      
        
          P.A. No.
3219                                                                  
A

          PA_Exhibit_A   Rev.: 2/22/07 

          BOEING
PROPRIETARY 

          


          


        

         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


        
          Exhibit A
to

          Purchase
Agreement No. 3219

          Page
2

        

      

    


    AIRCRAFT
CONFIGURATION

    


    Dated
                

    


    relating
to

    


    BOEING
MODEL 787 AIRCRAFT

    


    


    [CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED
SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL
TREATMENT]

     

    



    
      
        
          P.A. No.
3219                                                                  
A

          PA_Exhibit_A   Rev.: 2/22/07 

          BOEING
PROPRIETARY
AMENDED 

DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – PHOENIX

U.S. District Judge: Diane J. Humetewa Date: September 22, 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 11):

9:11 a.m. Court reconvenes. 9:13 a.m. Jury present. Carl Ferrer examined further. Exhibits 2041, 2042, 

85a pages 1 and 5, 836a page 2, 1 page 4, 1246, 1796, 220a, 222, and 222a are admitted. 10:46 a.m. 

Recess.

11:05 a.m. Court reconvenes. Discussion held re: Exhibit 1. 11:10 a.m. Jury present. Witness examined 

further. Exhibits 1 page 3, 1718, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1735, 1723, 1724, 1725, 1727 page 1, 1728, 1729, 

1730, 1731, 1732, 1722, 1726, 1733, 223, 224, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, and 225 are admitted. 12:20 

p.m. Cross-Examination by Mr. Feder. 12:32 p.m. Jury exits courtroom. Discussion held re: Exhibits. 

Government shall file a Reply to its Stipulation and Objections (Doc. 1801) by 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, 

September 23, 2023. A hearing to address the objections re: Exhibits is set for Monday, September

25, 2023 at 3:45 p.m. in Courtroom 605. Counsel may appear telephonically and the presence of 

Defendants may be waived. Counsel waive the presence of their respective clients for Defendants 

Lacey, Padilla, Spear and Vaught for Monday’s hearing. 12:47 p.m. Trial in recess until Tuesday, 

September 26, 2023 at 8:45 a.m.

Court Reporter Cathy Taylor

Deputy Clerk Liliana Figueroa

Start: 9:11 AM

Stop: 12:47 PM

Total: 3hrs 31min

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1997 Filed 09/22/23 Page 1 of 1