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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-1 Filed 04/25/18 Page 1 of 3
April 13, 2018

Via Email

jimgrant@dwt.com

Mr. Jim Grant

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200

Seattle, WA 98101-3045

CC: Mr. Robert Corn-Revere

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

1919 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20006-3401

Dear Mr. Grant, 

I respectfully request that you and your firm comply with the terms outlined in your 

engagement letter of December 12, 2017 (“Engagement Letter”). Specifically, my 

understanding is that this requires that your firm withdraw from representing Mr. Larkin 

and Mr. Lacey individually.1

Now that I have entered guilty pleas in the federal and California matters related to 

Backpage, I believe an incurable conflict has now arisen as between me and each of 

the defendants in federal Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-SPL (D. Ariz.) and California Superior 

Court Case No. 16FE024013. This includes a direct, incurable conflict between me and 

Mr. Larkin and Mr. Lacey. 

To the extent that you assert that I have waived the protections afforded to me as a 

current and former client of your firm,2 I do not agree. As stated in my letter to you dated

																																																												 1 Engagement	Letter,	Page	3,	para.	1:	“If	an	incurable	conflict	were	to	arise	among	the	three	of	you	(which	also	

appears	unlikely),	and	agreement	cannot	be	reached	regarding	DWT's	continued	representation	of	one	or	more	of	

you,	DWT	will	withdraw	from	representing	each	and	all	of	you	individually,	while	continuing	to	represent	

Backpage.com,	as	set	forth	above.”	

2 See,	e.g.,	Wash.	Rule	of	Professional	Conduct	1.9(a)	(“A	lawyer	who	has	formerly	represented	a	client	in	a	matter	

shall	not	thereafter	represent	another	person	in	the	same	or	a	substantially	related	matter	in	which	that	person’s	

interests	are	materially	adverse	to	the	interests	of	the	former	client	unless	the	former	client	gives	informed	consent,	

confirmed	in	writing”);	RPC	1.9(c)(1)-(2)	(“A	lawyer	who	has	formerly	represented	a	client	in	a	matter	or	whose	

present	or	former	firm	has	formerly	represented	a	client	in	a	matter	shall	not	thereafter	(1)	use	information	relating	

to	the	representation	to	the	disadvantage	of	the	former	client	except	as	these	Rules	would	permit	or	require	with	

respect	to	a	client,	or	when	the	information	has	become	generally	known;	or	(2)	reveal	information	relating	to	the	

representation	except	as	these	Rules	would	permit	or	require	with	respect	to	a	client.”).	

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-1 Filed 04/25/18 Page 2 of 3
April 6, 2018, I have withdrawn any prior waiver that may have existed regarding 

conflicts of interest. I further believe that any prior informed consent would no longer be 

valid, as the issuance of a federal indictment in this matter has materially changed the 

facts and circumstances surrounding any such consent. 

Sincerely, 

Carl Ferrer 

CC: Nanci Clarence, Jonathan Baum

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-1 Filed 04/25/18 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 957 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 957

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      February 2, 2010.
Whereas Jimmie Kenneth Johnson, born in El Cajon, California, and a resident of 
        Charlotte, North Carolina, successfully defended his Sprint Cup 
        Championships from 2006, 2007, and 2008;
Whereas Jimmie Johnson becomes the first driver in NASCAR history to win the 
        Sprint Cup Championship in 4 consecutive seasons, surpassing the 
        previous record of 3 straight by Cale Yarborough;
Whereas Jimmie Johnson's #48 Lowe's Chevrolet is backed by the finest team in 
        motorsports, including Crew Chief Chad Knaus, Team Owner Rick Hendrick, 
        and Car Owner, and racing legend Jeff Gordon;
Whereas Jimmie Johnson's life story is the embodiment of the American dream, 
        rising from humble roots to the pinnacle of his profession;
Whereas Jimmie Johnson and his wife Chandra founded the Jimmie Johnson 
        Foundation to provide assistance to disadvantaged children in pursuit of 
        their dreams;
Whereas Jimmie Johnson, now regarded as perhaps the greatest driver in the 
        sport's history, is universally regarded as humble and gracious, 
        unaffected by the enormity of his achievements; and
Whereas Jimmie Kenneth Johnson's remarkable contributions to NASCAR and the 
        communities of El Cajon, California, and Charlotte, North Carolina: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the historic achievements 
of Jimmie Kenneth Johnson and the #48 Lowe's Chevrolet team.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

FEB 10 2005

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DESI GALLEGOS,

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 04-1352

v. (D.C. No. 04-Z-1198)

CARL ZENON, Warden, A.V.C.F.;

JOE ORTIZ, Executive Director,

Colorado Department of Corrections;

and KEN SALAZAR, Attorney

General of the State of Colorado,

(D. Colo.)

Respondents-Appellees.

 

ORDER

Before BRISCOE, McKAY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

This is a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 prisoner appeal. Mr. Gallegos is a

prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections. He

challenges his August 27, 1997, Colorado state court conviction for vehicular

homicide. Mr. Gallegos filed his federal petition on June 3, 2004. The magistrate

judge subsequently ordered Mr. Gallegos to show cause within thirty days why the

application should not be denied as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

Following submission of a response, the district court dismissed the action as

time-barred. This appeal followed. 
-2-

The district court denied Mr. Gallegos’s application for a certificate of

appealability and his request to proceed in forma pauperis. He then applied to

this court for a certificate of appealability and renewed his application to proceed

in forma pauperis.

In order for this court to grant a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must

make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2) (2000). To do so, Petitioner must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists

could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have

been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to

deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000) (quotations omitted).

We have carefully reviewed Petitioner’s brief, the district court’s

disposition, and the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal,

or Petitioner’s brief raises an issue that meets our standards for the grant of a

certificate of appealability. For substantially the same reasons as set forth by the

district court in its Order of August 20, 2004, we cannot say “that reasonable

jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should

have been resolved in a different manner.” Id. 

We DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and

DISMISS the appeal. Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
-3-

is GRANTED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 getpokerrakeback.com (the “Company”) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven Goetz,
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 result of operations of the
      Company.


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
8th
day of April 14, 2008.





/s/  Steven
Goetz


Chief
Executive Officer
Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees Doc. 39 Att. 11

Dockets.Justia.com
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-31059

Summary Calendar

 

WELTON BROWN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

CARL CASTERLINE, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-2481

- - - - - - - - - -

April 21, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Welton Brown, federal prisoner #21317-034, appeals the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 application. Brown

seeks credit against his federal sentence for the five years he

served at the Louisiana State Penitentiary on state robbery charges

arising out of the same events as his federal bank robbery

conviction. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for

the reasons given by the district court. Brown v. Warden, No. 96-

2481 (W.D. La. Aug. 15, 1997). Brown is warned that any further 
No. 97-31059

-2-

challenges to his sentence will result in the imposition of

sanctions.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30637-30638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15336]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Concession Permits Awarded for Buffalo National River, AR

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Public notice.

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

SUMMARY: Public notice is hereby given that the National Park Service 
proposes to award eight (8) concession permits authorizing continued 
operation of johnboat rental, shuttle and guide services for the public 
at Buffalo National River for a period of five (5) years from December 
1, 1996, through November 30, 2001.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 16, 1996.


[[Page 30638]]


ADDRESSES: Interested parties should contact the Superintendent, 
Buffalo National River, P.O. Box 1173, Harrison, Arkansas 72602-1173, 
to obtain a copy of the prospectus describing the requirements of the 
proposed permits.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This permit renewal has been determined to 
be categorically excluded from the procedural provisions of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and no environmental document will be 
prepared.
    The existing concessionaires have performed their obligations to 
the satisfaction of the Secretary under existing permits which expire 
by limitation of time on October 31, 1996, and therefore pursuant to 
the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of October 9, 1965 (79 Stat. 
969; 16 U.S.C. 20), each existing concessioner is entitled to be given 
preference in the renewal of the permit and in the negotiation of a new 
permit, providing that the existing concessioner submits a responsive 
offer (a timely offer which meets the terms and conditions of the 
Prospectus). This means that the permit will be awarded to the party 
submitting the best offer, provided that if the best offer was not 
submitted by the existing concessioner, then the existing concessioner 
will be afforded the opportunity to match the best offer. If the 
existing concessioner agrees to match the best offer, then the permit 
will be awarded to the existing concessioner.
    If any of the existing concessionaires does not submit a responsive 
offer, the right of preference in renewal shall be considered to have 
been waived, and the permit will then be awarded to the party that has 
submitted the best responsive offer.
    The Secretary will consider and evaluate all proposals received as 
a result of this notice. Any proposal, including that of the existing 
concessioner, must be received by the Superintendent, not later than 
the sixtieth (60th) day following publication of this notice to be 
considered and evaluated.

    Dated: June 14, 1996.
David N. Given,
Acting Field Director, Midwest Field Area.
[FR Doc. 96-15336 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
Case 2:08-cv-15018-JAC-MJH   ECF No. 117, PageID.2871   Filed 09/09/13   Page 1 of 6

Case 2:08-cv-15018-JAC-MJH   ECF No. 117, PageID.2872   Filed 09/09/13   Page 2 of 6

Case 2:08-cv-15018-JAC-MJH   ECF No. 117, PageID.2873   Filed 09/09/13   Page 3 of 6

Case 2:08-cv-15018-JAC-MJH   ECF No. 117, PageID.2874   Filed 09/09/13   Page 4 of 6

Case 2:08-cv-15018-JAC-MJH   ECF No. 117, PageID.2875   Filed 09/09/13   Page 5 of 6

Case 2:08-cv-15018-JAC-MJH   ECF No. 117, PageID.2876   Filed 09/09/13   Page 6 of 6
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BAE INDUSTRIES, INC., a Michigan 

Corporation, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:08-cv-14497-AC-DAS 

 Hon. Avern Cohn 

vs. 

WHITESELL CORPORATION, an Alabama 

Corporation, and WHITESELL INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION, an Alabama corporation, 

Defendants. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

INDEX OF EXHIBITS FOR

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Exhibit Description

A Asset Purchase Agreement Exhibit M-1: Contracts 

B Asset Purchase Agreement Exhibit M-2: Contracts Assumed 

C August 2006 Correspondence from Whitesell to BAE Announcing Asset 

Purchase and Enclosing Quotation and Terms and Conditions 

D Affidavit of Steve Semmler 

2:08-cv-14497-AC-DAS Doc # 12-2 Filed 10/27/08 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 354
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

William Lester Summers,

Petitioner, Case No. 08-14100

v. Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds

Debra L. Scutt,

Respondent.

_________________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter has come before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

Being fully advised in the premises and having reviewed the record and the pleadings, including

Petitioner’s Objections if any, the Court hereby ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report

and Recommendation. It is further ordered that Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus is not

barred by the one year statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), Respondent’s motion for

summary judgment is DENIED, and Respondent is hereby ordered to file an answer addressing the merits

of Petitioner’s claim.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: December 22, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on December

22, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14100-NGE-PJK Doc # 18 Filed 12/22/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 291
**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 Quarterly Report of Boatatopia (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen N. Causey, President and Principal Accounting 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 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/ Stephen N. Causey                                         |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Michael J. Evangelista

President and Principal Accounting Officer

|   | May 14, 2007 |
|--------|--------------|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HENRY BETHUNE, #500130,

Plaintiff, Case No. 08-14412

Hon. Marianne O. Battani

v.

 Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

MARY BERGHUIS, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff, Henry Bethune, an inmate housed at the Earnest C. Brooks Correctional

Facility, filed a complaint alleging various employees of the Michigan Department of

Corrections violated his Eighth Amendment Rights. The Court subsequently referred this

matter to Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen for all pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Court adopted an August 14, 2009, Report and

Recommendation ("R&R"), and awarded summary judgment to Defendants Mary Berghuis,

Patricia Caruso, Rick Smith, Brian Evans, Jay Cregg, Michael Wilkinson, Renee

VanHouten, and Judy Gracik

On September 14, 2009, Magistrate Judge Whalen issues a R&R sua sponte,

recommending that the Court dismiss the remaining Defendants, Daniel Spitters, and

“Unknown Corrections Officers, Medical Doctor(s) and Nurses” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B). The Magistrate Judge informed the parties that objections to the R&R must

be filed within ten days of service and that a party’s failure to file objections would waive

2:08-cv-14412-MOB-RSW Doc # 30 Filed 11/06/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 314
2

any further right of appeal. See R&R at 16; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR

72.1(d)(2).

Because no objection has been filed in this case, the parties waived their right to

review and appeal. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and

DISMISSES the remaining Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: November 6, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were mailed to Plaintiff and counsel of record on this date by

ordinary mail and/or electronic filing.

s/Bernadette M. Thebolt

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14412-MOB-RSW Doc # 30 Filed 11/06/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 315
Order entered June 9, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01526-CV

JOHNNY SPENCER, Appellant

V.

DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellee

On Appeal from the Dummy Number

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 

ORDER

We DENY appellant’s motion to stay the mandate.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
_


EXHIBIT 10.23




SECOND AMENDMENT TO

THE PHOENIX COMPANIES, INC. 

NONQUALIFIED SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE

RETIREMENT PLAN B 

As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009




The Phoenix Companies, Inc. Nonqualified Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan B, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2009 (the “Plan”), further amended effective March 31, 2010, and is further amended effective November 19, 2013, as follows:




1.

Section 2.4A is added to read as follows:




2.4A

“Domestic Partner” with respect to any Participant means a person of the same sex who cohabitates or resides with a Participant and meets each of the following: 




(a)

is the Participant's sole domestic partner and intends to remain so indefinitely;




(b)

is unmarried, at least eighteen (18) years of age, and mentally competent to consent to contract;




(c)

is unrelated to the Participant by blood or adoption to a degree of closeness that would prohibit legal marriage in the state in which the Participant and such person reside;




(d)

cohabitates or resides with the Participant as domestic partners and intends to do so indefinitely;




(e)

resides with the Participant in a state that prohibits legal marriage between same sex individuals;




(f)

has lived with the Participant as domestic partners for at least 12 consecutive months;




(g)

is jointly responsible, with the Participant, for their common welfare and financial obligations; and




(h)

provided such person attests to the person's domestic partnership with the Participant in an affidavit filed with the Administrator and provides sufficient proof of their interdependence.



























-1-






EXHIBIT 10.23




2.

Section 4.7 is amended to read in its entirety as follows:




4.7

Death Benefits  If the spouse or Domestic Partner of a Participant in the Plan is entitled to a death benefit under the Pension Plan, said spouse or Domestic Partner shall be entitled to receive from the Employer a death benefit under this Plan equal to the difference between (a) the death benefit that would be payable under the Pension Plan as of the date of the Participant’s death if such benefit were calculated based on the benefit described in this Article IV; and (b) the death benefit actually payable under the Pension Plan as of the date of the Participant’s death, calculated in accordance with the terms of the Pension Plan.  No death benefit other than that set forth in this Section 4.7 shall be payable under this Plan if a Participant dies prior to the commencement of benefit payments under this Plan.  Following the commencement of payments under this Plan, death benefits shall only be payable to the extent the Participant is receiving benefits in the form of a survivor benefit or an annuity or installments that has a period certain component and the minimum payment period has not lapsed.















-2-