alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Civil Action No. 12-cv-00819-RBJ

DEBRA SALMANS,

MICHAEL WEINER,

PATRICIA BACHMANN,

DIANE PIKLOR, and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BYRON UDELL & ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a Accuquote,

Defendant.

ORDER TO SET SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The parties are ordered to set an initial

scheduling conference in this Court (with Judge Jackson) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and 

D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1 no later than 45 days after the answer, motion to dismiss or other 

response to the complaint is filed. Each party’s lead trial counsel shall attend the conference.

The conference shall be held in Courtroom A-902, Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, 901 19th

Street, Denver, Colorado. The parties are directed to jointly contact Chambers by telephone at 

(303) 844-4694 or by email at Jackson_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov to obtain a scheduling 

conference date. 

A meeting for the purposes of attempting to agree on a scheduling order and satisfying 

the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) should be held no later than 21 days before the 

proposed scheduling order is tendered. The proposed scheduling order, which should be 

prepared as described in Appendix F to the local rules, should be tendered no later than five days 
before the scheduling conference. The proposed scheduling order should set forth the parties’

agreement or their respective positions on the matters set forth in Appendix F. A copy of 

instructions for the preparation of a scheduling order and a form scheduling order can be 

downloaded from the Court’s website (http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Forms.aspx).

DATED this 4th day of April, 2012.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge
Chart 11448HOME | ABOUT             US | CONTACT             | REGIONAL             MANAGERSNautical             Charts & Pubs Surveys             & WrecksGIS             & Other ProductsResearch             & DevelopmentCustomer             ServiceBusiness             OpportunitiesEducation      Chart:       11448          Edition:       15          Edition       Date: August       2006          Clear       Dates: NM - 7/3/2010     LNM -       6/29/2010      Download RNCNotice ListingFind A Chart       Site-               Click the +/- buttons               and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) to zoom in and out.                             
-               Click the arrow               buttons to pan left/right and up/down.              
-               Drag the navigation               box in the upper left hand corner to move around the chart image.               This chart display or derived product can be used as a               planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational               aid. NOTE: Use the official, full scale NOAA nautical               chart for real navigation whenever possible. These are available               from authorized NOAA nautical chart sales agents. Screen captures               of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart               carriage requirements for regulated commercial vessels under               Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.  Adobe Flash Player  is required to view the chart               image.Powered by  Zoomify .
Privacy  |         Disclaimer  |         NOAA's       National Ocean Service  |   NOAA  |         U.S. Department       of Commerce
#### 1307.105 Contents of written acquisition plans.

Information on the contents of Acquisition Plans is set forth in CAM 1307.1
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

BOEING CAPITAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------
(Dollars in millions)                                   2000       1999       1998       1997       1996
---------------------                                 --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
<S>                                                   <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Income:
  Income before provision for income taxes..........   $167.9     $126.7     $104.6     $ 87.8     $ 74.9
  Fixed charges.....................................    232.7      133.5      130.6      128.2      120.8
                                                       ------     ------     ------     ------     ------
  Income before provision for income taxes and fixed
    charges.........................................   $400.6     $260.2     $235.2     $216.0     $195.7
                                                       ======     ======     ======     ======     ======
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense..................................   $229.2     $130.0     $126.7     $124.7     $117.3
  Preferred stock cash dividends....................      3.5        3.5        3.9        3.5        3.5
                                                       ------     ------     ------     ------     ------
                                                       $232.7     $133.5     $130.6     $128.2     $120.8
                                                       ======     ======     ======     ======     ======
Ratio of income before provision for income taxes
  and fixed charges to fixed charges................     1.72       1.95       1.80       1.68       1.62
                                                       ======     ======     ======     ======     ======
</TABLE>

                                       46
# C_2017111EN.01000201.xml

| 8.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

7 April 2017

(2017/C 111/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0630 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 117,64 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4363 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85573 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5963 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0695 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,1583 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,563 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,36 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2249 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5178 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,9726 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4123 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4256 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2596 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5249 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4902 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 206,35 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,6840 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3318 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4490 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 161,42 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7144 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,019 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 60,4918 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,790 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,3349 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,9474 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,3775 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0630

JPY

Japanese yen

117,64

DKK

Danish krone

7,4363

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85573

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5963

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0695

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,1583

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,563

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,36

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2249

RON

Romanian leu

4,5178

TRY

Turkish lira

3,9726

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4123

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4256

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2596

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5249

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4902

KRW

South Korean won

1 206,35

ZAR

South African rand

14,6840

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3318

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4490

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 161,42

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7144

PHP

Philippine peso

53,019

RUB

Russian rouble

60,4918

THB

Thai baht

36,790

BRL

Brazilian real

3,3349

MXN

Mexican peso

19,9474

INR

Indian rupee

68,3775

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Exhibit 10(b)

                       Consent of Independent Accountants







<PAGE>


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the
registration statement on Form N-4 ("Registration Statement") of our reports
dated March 10, 2000 and February 15, 2000, relating to the financial statements
of PHL Variable Accumulation Account and the financial statements of PHL
Variable Insurance Company, respectively, which appear in such Registration
Statement. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in
such Registration Statement.

/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
April 21, 2000
#### Trippe *v.*Bell & Company.

April 18, 1913.

Complaint. Before Judge Worrill. Early superior court. July 13, 1912.

*Bambo &*Wright, for plaintiff in error. *B. E. Sheffield,*contra.

Eisii, C. J.

1. The substance of the material allegations of a petition brought by Bell & Company against Trippe was as follows: Sheffield delivered to the defendant, who as weigher had charge of a public warehouse for the storage of cotton, a certain bale of cotton described by ’ weight and a number marked thereon, and received from the defendant a warehouse receipt for the same, which next day he transferred in writing to the plaintiff, who has since retained its possession. Subsequently the defendant, without legal authority, delivered the cotton to one Singletary', knowing that the latter did not own it, but that Sheffield or his assignee did. On account of these facts the cotton had been lost to the iilaintiff, and he had been damaged thereby to the amount of its value, which was set forth. *Held,*that a motion made at the trial to dismiss the petition upon the ground that it did not set forth a cause of action was properly overruled, as the alleged conduct of the defendant amounted to a conversion *(Liptrot*v. *Holmes,*1 *Ga. Ga.*381), and he was liable for his tortious act, though done in the capacity of agent. Civil Code, § 3613.

2. A charge was not erroneous on the ground that “under the pleadings and the evidence [it] did not state correctly the law governing the case,” wherein the judge specifically set forth the allegations of the petition as above summarized, and instructed the jury that if under the evidence they believed these allegations to be true then they would be authorized to find in favor of the plaintiff.

3. The, evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00114-CV

Roy Edward Addicks, Jr., Appellant

v.

State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF FAYETTE COUNTY, 155TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2005V-004, HONORABLE DAN R. BECK, JUDGE PRESIDING 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Roy Edward Addicks, Jr., acting pro se, has filed a “Motion for Order

Compelling the District Courts and Sheriff’s Departments and District Attorney’s Office to Send

Copies of All Relevant Records and Documents to Appellant.” We deny this motion as we have no

authority to order these entities to make copies and send them to appellant. However, a clerk’s

record has been filed in this appeal. (No reporter’s record was made.) Appellant must view the

record in order to prepare his brief because the brief must be based on the record. See Tex. R. App.

P. 38.1(f) (statement of facts in brief must be supported by record references). As appellant is

incarcerated, it is not practicable for him to come to the Court. He swears that he is utterly indigent

and cannot pay for a copy. Accordingly, the Court will check out the record to appellant by sending

it to him so he can prepare his brief. Appellant is warned that this record is the only copy. It may

not be altered in any way including, but not limited to, underlining, highlighting, crossing out, or 
2

making notes in the margins. Further, if the record is not returned, the appeal will be dismissed for

lack of a clerk’s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b) (may dismiss if no clerk’s record and

appellant’s fault).

In order to allow time for appellant to review the record and prepare a brief without

having to file any more motions for extension, this appeal is abated until January 8, 2007.

Appellant’s brief is due on that date. No further extensions of time to file appellant’s brief will be

granted. Failure to file the brief will result in a dismissal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App.

P. 42.3(b), (c). Of course, appellant may file his brief earlier than the deadline if he is ready.

 

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Filed: August 18, 2006
Exhibit 32.2


                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Nigel F. Penney , Chief Financial Officer of Chaparral Resources, Inc. (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, to the best of my
knowledge:

     1.   The company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
          ended September 30, 2004 ("Quarterly Report") fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

and

     2.   All of the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
          presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result
          of operations of the company.



Date: November 11, 2004,





/s/  Nigel F. Penney
-----------------------
Nigel F. Penney
Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 11
                          QMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
             STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)



(in thousands, except 
per share amounts)                October 3,      September 27,   September 29,
                                     1997             1996            1995
                                  -----------     ------------    ------------

Net Income (Loss)                  $(26,122)         $4,253         $(44,286)
                                   ========          ======         ========
 
 
Shares used in this computation:
 Weighted average common shares
  outstanding                        10,696          10,678           10,677
 
 Shares applicable to stock options, net
  of shares assumed to be purchased
  from proceeds at average market         0              44                0
                                     ------         -------           ------
 
Total shares for earnings per common
 share computation (primary)         10,696          10,722           10,677
 
 Shares applicable to stock options in
  addition to those used in primary
  computation due to the use of period-
  end market price when higher than
  average                                 0              33                0
                                     ------         -------           ------
 
Total fully diluted shares           10,696          10,755           10,677
                                     ======          ======           ======
 
 
Earnings (loss) per common share
 Primary:
  Net income (loss)                  ($2.44)        $  0.40           ($4.15)
 Fully Diluted:
  Net income (loss)                  ($2.44)        $  0.40           ($4.15)
 
 Weighted average number of shares
 used in computing earnings per share:
  Primary                            10,696          10,722           10,677
  Fully diluted                      10,696          10,755           10,677
#### 2403.203 Reporting procedures.

Suspected violations of the gratuities clause (FAR 52.203-3) shall be reported to the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) in writing. The HCA will request the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to conduct any necessary investigation. Upon receipt of the OIG report, the HCA will evaluate the circumstances to determine if a violation has occurred. The HCA will refer violations and recommended corrective actions to the Senior Procurement Executive for disposition.

[49 FR 7700, Mar. 1, 1984, as amended at 51 FR 7948, Mar. 7, 1986]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT

EASTERN DIVISION

EARL MILLOY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 12 C 4368

)

CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Counsel for plaintiff Earl Milloy (“Milloy”) has, in response to the inquiry contained in this

Court’s June 8 memorandum order, filed a Statement of Jurisdiction that clarifies the irrelevancy

for current purposes of Milloy’s nonreceipt of an EEOC right-to-sue letter regarding his initial charge

of employment discrimination. This Court recognizes that it was thrown off track by the fact that

the only allegation in Milloy’s Complaint that referred to a right-to-sue letter was the disclaimer in

Complaint ¶ 14 as to such receipt regarding Milloy’s original charge – in a puzzling way, the

Complaint itself is silent on that subject as to the retaliation charge. True enough, Complaint Ex.

B does include an EEOC right-to-sue letter, but that letter – which refers to EEOC’s adoption of

state agency findings as to “this charge” – cites only EEOC’s own Charge No. 21B-2011-00717,

while the Illinois Department of Human Rights retaliation charge bears its own No. 2011CF1915.

In the summary judgment context, an opinion by Judge Posner said some years back that

“judges are not like pigs hunting for truffles.” This situation is of course not parallel to the one that

produced that aphorism – but at the same time it might have been expected that Milloy’s able

counsel (a characterization certainly justified by the current Statement of Jurisdiction) might have

done a bit better in terms of notice pleading. All the same, now that counsel has explained the
situation this Court will not require that the Complaint to be amended. Instead it is issuing its

customary initial scheduling order.

___________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: June 12, 2012

2
#### Thomas S. Henry, as Receiver, etc., Respondent, *v.*Samuel H. Randall et al., Appellants. Same Respondent *v.*George H. Randall, Impleaded, etc., Appellant.

(Argued June *5,*1883 ;

decided June *12,*1883.)

*Samuel H. Randall*for appellants.

*Edward P. Wilder*for respondent.

Agree to dismiss *appeals;*no opinion.

All concur.

Appeals dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT (10)(a)


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
<PAGE>

                        Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Auditors"
in the Statement of Additional Information and to the use of our reports
(1) dated January 28, 2000 with respect to the financial statements of the
subaccounts of PFL Life Variable Annuity Account A, which are available for
investment by the contract owners of The Atlas Portfolio Builder Variable
Annuity, and (2) dated February 18, 2000 with respect to the statutory-basis
financial statements and schedules of PFL Life Insurance Company, included in
Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4
No. 333-26209) and related Prospectus of The Atlas Portfolio Builder Variable
Annuity.


                                     /s/ Ernst & Young


Des Moines, Iowa
April 24, 2000
**Exhibit 32**

April 16, 2007

Via EDGAR

Securities andExchange CommissionJudiciary Plaza450 Fifth Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:      Certification pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In connection withthe Annual Report of Mesa Offshore Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not inits individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)         The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Trust.

Theabove certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part ofthe Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
|        |     | JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.       |
|--------|----------|---------------------------------|
|   |     | Trustee for Mesa Offshore Trust |
|   |     | By:                             |   | /s/ MIKE ULRICH |
|   |     |                            |   | Mike Ulrich |
|   | * * | * *                        | * * | *Vice President* |
|   | * * | * *                        |   | *The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A.,  as attorney-in-fact for the Trustee* |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

RAY JOHNSON #B-15761, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 2263

)

MARCUS HARDY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

For some reason this Court learned of the filing of this 42

U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983”) action only through its month-end

check of the list of cases assigned to its calendar during March

2012 (for some reason the Judge’s Copy of the Complaint filed by

Ray Johnson (“Johnson”) had not been delivered to chambers. With

a photocopy of the Complaint now in hand, this Court is

contemporaneously issuing its customary initial scheduling order,

with this sua sponte memorandum order being occasioned by one

aspect of the Complaint.

Each of the defendants, all of whom are or were affiliated

with Stateville Correctional Center (“Stateville”) is assertedly

being sued in two capacities--individual and official (see

Complaint ¶¶4-12). That, however, appears to misunderstand the

concept of a suit against a public official in his or her

“official capacity,” which is ordinarily equated to an action

brought against the public body itself, with the individual being

named solely as the proxy for that public body. Indeed, in this

Case: 1:12-cv-02263 Document #: 14 Filed: 04/05/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:38
instance the only substantive reference to “official capacity”

after those opening paragraphs (which do nothing more than to

identify the individual defendants) is found in what is labeled

“Second Claim for Relief--Deliberate Indifference in Official

Capacity.” That portion of the Complaint names only Stateville’s

Warden Marcus Hardy, and the allegations there reflect a clear

effort to avoid the prohibition in Monell v. Dep’t of Social

Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) against

predicating Section 1983 liability on respondeat superior

grounds.

Accordingly all references to “official capacity” are

stricken except as to Warden Hardy. No view is expressed here as

to the propriety of attaching that label to the Warden in terms

of the possibility of realizing on any judgment, if Johnson were

to prevail, out of assets other than those of the Warden

personally.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: April 5, 2012

2

Case: 1:12-cv-02263 Document #: 14 Filed: 04/05/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:39