alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 “[#250]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a

specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this

convention throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 10-cv-03050-REB-BNB

(Consolidated with Civil Action Nos. 10-cv-03051-REB-BNB, 11-cv-01832-REB-BNB,

11-cv-01874-REB-BNB, 11-cv-02253-REB-BNB, 11-cv-02894-REB-BNB, 11-cv-02895-

REB-BNB, 11-cv-03069-REB-BNB, and 11-cv-03070-REB-BNB)

REGINA RESSLER, and

RANDY RESSLER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(This Order Relates to Civil Action No. 11-cv-02253-REB-BNB)

Blackburn, J.

The matter is before me on the Stipulation To Dismiss With Prejudice [#250]1

filed March 7, 2013. After reviewing the stipulation and the record, I conclude that the

stipulation should be approved and that Civil Action 11-cv-02253-REB-BNB should be

dismissed with prejudice.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Stipulation To Dismiss With Prejudice [#250] filed March 7, 2013,

is APPROVED;

2. That Civil Action 11-cv-02253-REB-BNB is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

Case 1:11-cv-02253-REB-BNB Document 15 Filed 03/07/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

with each party to bear its own attorney fees and costs;

3. That any motion pending in Civil Action 11-cv-02253-REB-BNB is DENIED as

moot; and

4. That Civil Action 11-cv-02253-REB-BNB is REMOVED from the list of

consolidated cases, and the case caption is amended accordingly.

Dated March 7, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02253-REB-BNB Document 15 Filed 03/07/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02189-BNB

DWAYNE A. JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO, 

DAVE WELCHER, 

ERWIN MOZER, M.D., and 

NURSE JANE DOE, individually,

Defendants.

ORDER DRAWING CASE

Following review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.2C, the court has determined

that this case does not appear to be appropriate for summary dismissal. Therefore, the

case will be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate judge. See D.C.COLO.LCivR

8.2D. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that this case shall be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate

judge.

DATED November 25, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02189-PAB Document 7 Filed 11/25/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Brian Zazulka, Petitioner, v New York State Department of Environmental Conservation et al., Respondents.

[807 NYS2d 311]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR Proceeding article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, dated December 7, 2004, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for a permit to build a two-family house in a designated freshwater wetland.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation must be confirmed, as it was rational and not arbitrary and capricious *(see Matter of Grimaldi v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation,*299 AD2d 410 [2002]; *Goldhirsch v Flacke,*114 AD2d 998 [1985]; *Matter of Smith v Williams,*111 AD2d 855 [1985]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Cozier, J.P., Santucci, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 12.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Riaz Bandali,
certify that:



1. I have reviewed
this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Emerald Health Therapeutics, Inc.;



2. Based on my
knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;



|Date: August 3, 2020 | By: | /s/ Riaz Bandali             
|-------------------- | --- | -----------------------------
|                     |     | Riaz Bandali                 
|                     |     | Chief Executive Officer      
|                     |     | (Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 11.1



EFJ, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

(Unaudited and in thousands, except share and per share data)



|                                                     |  |                              |            |      |   |           
|---------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- | ---------- | ---- | - | ----------
|                                                     |  | Three Months Ended March 31,
|                                                     |  | 2005                         |            | 2004
|Net income                                           |  | $                            | 5,243      |      | $ | 2,995     
|                                                     |  |                              |            |      |   |           
|Net income per share  Basic:                        |  |                              |            |      |   |           
|                                                     |  |                             
|Weighted average common shares - Basic               |  |                              | 18,313,043 |      |   | 17,584,295
|                                                     |  |                              |            |      |   |           
|Net income per share  Basic                         |  | $                            | 0.29       |      | $ | 0.17      
|                                                     |  |                              |            |      |   |           
|Net income per share  Diluted:                      |  |                              |            |      |   |           
|                                                     |  |                             
|Shares used in this computation:                     |  |                              |            |      |   |           
|Weighted average common shares - Basic               |  |                              | 18,313,043 |      |   | 17,584,295
|Dilutive effect of shares under employee stock plans |  |                              | 458,203    |      |   | 1,477,822 
|                                                     |  |                              |            |      |   |           
|Weighted average common shares  Diluted             |  |                              | 18,771,246 |      |   | 19,062,117
|                                                     |  |                              |            |      |   |           
|Net income per share  Diluted                       |  | $                            | 0.28       |      | $ | 0.16      
|                                                     |  |                              |            |      |   |
#### The Pennsylvania Rd. Co. *v.*Gentile Brothers Co.

(No. 24640

— Decided March 21, 1934.)

*Mr. Joseph 8. Gray don, Mr. Frank 8. Gray don*and *Messrs. Maxwell <& Ramsey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Hightower <& O’Brien,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Matthias, J., not participating.
H. Res. 866 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 22, 2008. 

Whereas the estimated street value of the cocaine seized by 

the Coast Guard in 2007 is more than $4,700,000,000 

or nearly half of the Coast Guard’s annual budget; 

Whereas the Coast Guard’s at sea drug interdictions are 

making a difference in the lives of American citizens evidenced by the reduced supply of cocaine in more than 35 

major cities throughout the United States; 

Whereas keeping illegal drugs from reaching our shores 

where they undermine American values and threaten 

families, schools, and communities continues to be an important national priority; 

Whereas through robust interagency teamwork, collaboration 

with international partners, and ever-more effective tools 

and tactics, the Coast Guard has seized more than 

2,000,000 pounds of cocaine during the past 10 years 

and will continue to tighten the web of detection and 

interdiction at sea; and 

Whereas the Coast Guard men and women who, while away 

from family and hundreds of miles from our shores, execute this dangerous mission, as well as other vital maritime safety, security, and environmental protection missions, with quiet dedication and without want of public 
2 

•HRES 866 EH 

recognition, continue to show dedication and selfless service in protecting the Nation and the American people: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives honors the United States Coast Guard, with its proud 

217 year legacy of maritime law enforcement and border protection, along with the brave men and women whose efforts 

clearly demonstrate the honor, respect, and devotion to duty 

that ensures America’s parents can sleep soundly knowing 

the Coast Guard is on patrol. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ernie Frias, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 869]

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barbara F. Newman, J.), rendered May 22, 2003, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 3 to 9 years, unanimously dismissed.

Since defendant has been deported, he is not presently available to obey the mandate of the court in the event of affirmance *(see e.g. People v Llama,*19 AD3d 170 [2005]). Accordingly, his appeal is dismissed. Were we not dismissing the appeal, we would find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
The Court has once before granted a request for relief in this case that was not 1

properly presented as a motion. See Docket No. 41. The parties are reminded that a

“request for a court order must be made by motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02238-PAB-KLM

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LELAND ASAY,

SAMUEL VIDAL GOMEZ,

JERRY LEE RHEA,

DENNIS GLENN COEN,

HEATH ALLEN RUSSO,

LOUIE GEORGE SCHIMPF,

QUALITY PAVING CO., a Colorado corporation, and

QUALITY RESURFACING CO., n/k/a QUALITY PAVING CO., a Colorado corporation,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Stipulated Voluntary Dismissal Without

Prejudice of Complaint Against Defendant Quality Resurfacing Co., n/k/a Quality Paving

Co. (the “Stipulation”) [Docket No. 45] filed by plaintiff and defendant Quality Paving Co. 

Despite requesting a court order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), the parties have

failed to file a motion requesting such relief. The Court will nevertheless address the 1

parties’ request and, having reviewed the Stipulation, it is

ORDERED that plaintiff’s claims against defendant Quality Resurfacing Co. are

Case 1:11-cv-02238-PAB-KLM Document 47 Filed 11/09/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

dismissed without prejudice.

DATED November 9, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02238-PAB-KLM Document 47 Filed 11/09/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          11,406
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,125
<ALLOWANCES>                                       213
<INVENTORY>                                      3,623
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,309
<PP&E>                                          18,851
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,173
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,400
<BONDS>                                             46
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         66
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,410
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,202
<SALES>                                         21,286
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,286
<CGS>                                           10,327
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,327
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (324)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,523)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,523)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,523)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.063)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.063)
        

</TABLE>
**
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2019-1 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify andrepresent that: 

 
 1.
A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as ofFebruary 20, 2019, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2019-1 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the“Agreement”) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision. 

 
 2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report. 

 
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By: 
/s/ Marc Womack
Name: Marc WomackTitle: EVP, Head of OperationsDate: March 31, 2023By: 
/s/ Vikas Gupta
Name: Vikas GuptaTitle: TreasurerDate: March 31, 2023**
10

A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest Rate Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1995...... 73.8 83.9 75.9 73.0 53.1 72.2 61.7 63.9 73.6 76.7 1996...... 63.1 58.1 71.2 67.3 32.9 61.4 60.6 61.5 69.1 62.2 1997...... 65.8 66.4 73.2 67.8 49.9 64.3 60.1 58.0 68.0 67.0 1998...... 54.4 55.0 59.4 68.5 46.7 42.0 57.6 54.8 62.7 51.1 1999...... 60.7 45.6 66.0 68.6 58.2 52.0 52.6 54.6 60.2 63.1 2000...... 66.9 57.3 60.7 67.0 62.2 76.7 53.4 54.6 61.8 74.5 2001...... 74.5 72.9 65.6 75.0 61.0 80.5 58.8 60.9 69.4 81.5 2002...... 75.1 64.6 65.4 75.8 60.9 84.1 67.8 64.5 68.4 81.2 2003...... 74.3 68.7 59.6 74.6 69.5 86.5 67.6 65.1 63.0 82.1 2004...... 74.3 67.2 47.5 73.4 71.2 91.3 65.8 63.7 63.1 79.9 2005...... 77.1 62.7 71.4 73.0 83.9 90.6 67.6 62.9 65.4 83.2 2006...... 75.3 56.9 68.0 70.4 84.1 91.8 68.7 66.1 65.5 79.8 2003: Q3... 78.2 74.9 41.0 81.0 78.2 88.8 69.7 64.4 73.6 84.1  Q4... 74.9 75.5 53.0 75.3 67.4 87.1 66.0 65.6 61.6 83.4 2004: Q1... 69.4 65.2 62.7 66.8 55.1 86.3 64.5 66.2 61.9 72.3  Q2... 80.5 79.6 52.8 77.7 72.5 94.5 68.5 66.1 67.6 88.9  Q3... 74.5 67.5 48.7 71.0 68.8 92.1 60.5 60.1 60.9 82.0  Q4... 74.1 64.4 34.6 79.7 86.9 91.5 70.1 61.7 61.7 79.2 2005: Q1... 72.7 61.2 73.9 73.5 51.6 83.2 66.7 59.1 64.2 78.1  Q2... 82.7 64.7 78.6 74.9 89.7 95.4 65.8 64.4 69.5 88.9  Q3... 75.3 70.0 70.5 63.3 89.1 88.4 68.5 66.5 61.5 81.4  Q4... 75.4 59.7 65.2 81.5 72.6 87.9 70.3 60.5 66.7 81.1 2006: Q1... 70.5 59.1 71.1 65.7 76.4 90.9 63.9 64.5 62.7 74.0  Q2... 75.9 68.7 69.8 66.0 85.6 90.8 68.8 64.4 70.3 79.4  Q3... 78.3 43.0 64.3 81.2 78.5 96.6 76.9 72.9 62.9 83.5  Q4... 76.6 62.7 67.4 74.9 91.4 87.1 65.4 62.3 65.3 82.9 2007: Q1... 64.6 71.8 68.1 55.8 50.0 87.4 62.6 64.9 70.9 62.9  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
Skip to Content
Release dates
About
Current release
*Other formats:*
 ASCII (48 KB)
PDF (115 KB)
CSV (103 KB)

----

**September 2007**

Section A
Section B

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable (CSV) format contain all available historical data.Section CReserve Bank Surveys of Farm Credit Conditions and Farm Land Values   C.1. Non-real-estate Farm Lending Compared with a Year EarlierASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (17 KB)  C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next QuarterASCII (11 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.3. Indicators of Relative Credit AvailabilityASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (14 KB)  C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (10 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (6 KB)  C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (1 KB)  C.6. Trends in Farm Real Estate Values and Loan VolumeASCII (7 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.7. Trends in Farm Income and ExpendituresASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (7 KB)Release dates |AboutCurrent release*Other formats:* ASCII (48 KB) |PDF (115 KB) |CSV (103 KB)
Statistical releases
Home |Economic research and dataAccessibility |Contact Us**Last update: September 18, 2007**
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 189 (Monday, September 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 56583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22665]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES


Sunshine Act Meeting

ACTION: Notice of a Partially Open Meeting of the Board of Directors of 
the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

TIME AND PLACE:  Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 1 p.m. The meeting will 
be held at Ex-Im Bank in Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20571.

OPEN AGENDA ITEM:  PEFCO Secured Note Issues Resolutions.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:  The meeting will be open to public participation 
for Item No. 1 only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact: 
Office of the Secretary, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571 
(Telephone 202-565-3336).

Howard A. Schweitzer,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E8-22665 Filed 9-26-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
#### SMITH v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

No. 4649.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 29, 1934.

For former opinion, see 152 So. 369.

Jackson & Smith, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Lewell C. Butler, of Shreveport, for appel-lee.

DREW, Judge.

This case is before us on rehearing. Plaintiff’s husband, an employee of the Magnolia Petroleum Company, while performing his regular duties, one of which was the washing out of a boiler, became overheated while washing the boiler and died of heat exhaustion a few days later. He was protected by a policy of insurance issued by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, which policy provided, in case of death, for the payment to his beneficiary, the plaintiff herein, of an amount equal to one year’s annual rate of pay and for an additional amount in a like sum if death resulted directly and independently of all other causes from bodily injuries sustained solely through violent external and accidental means. The yearly rate of pay of deceased was $1,920. His beneficiary was paid this amount, and the insurance company refused to pay a like sum for accidental death. This suit followed and is defended on the ground that, although deceased’s death was an accident, it was not caused by accidental means and is not covered by "the policy.

The lower court rejected plaintiff’s demands, and this court reversed the lower court and granted judgment as prayed for, holding the death of deceased was accidental. We failed to distinguish between accidental death and death caused by accidental means.

While this case was pending before us on application for rehearing, the Supreme Court of this state in the case of Parker v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company, 178 La. 977, 152 So. 583, and the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Landréss v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company et al., 54 S. Ct. 461, 78 L. Ed. 934, 90 A. L. R. 1382, decided March 5, 1934, clearly distinguished between death by accident and death caused by accidental means, and, regardless of our own views on the question, we are forced to follow the decisions of our state Supreme Court.

Deceased was performing his regular work and doing that which he intended to do. He became- overheated and died as a result thereof. Under the above-cited decisions, his death was not caused by accidental means.

*790Plaintiff contends .that the canse of deceased becoming overheated was due to a defective valve which caused him to be sprayed with hot mineral seal oil, but we have searched the record in vain and can find no legal testimony to bear out plaintiff’s contention in this respect. It is clearly a case of deceased becoming overheated while performing the regular duties he was employed to perform, and it is not death caused by accidental means, under the provisions of the insurance contract.

It therefore follows that the former judgment of this court is recalled and set aside, and there is now judgment in favor of defendant affirming the judgment of the lower court, with costs.