alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A.14. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, Selected Quarters

Percent except as noted

USDA Farm Production Region

NE LS CB NP AP SE DL SP MN PA

Proportion of farm loans

outstanding, 2006 Q3 survey,

region share of national

total 2.8 9.0 26.4 22.4 7.8 5.3 4.9 8.5 5.3 7.5

Sample coverage, 2006 Q3

survey, sample share of total

regional loans 9.1 5.5 17.0 33.5 19.1 12.2 8.9 5.6 9.1 28.7

Avg. loan size, 2006 Q3 survey

(thousands of dollars) 53.9 31.7 82.7 65.7 171.8 37.5 30.7 50.8 29.8 73.0

Survey date Weighted average interest rate during sample week

2001: Q3 8.3 9.8 7.9 8.2 6.3 7.6 8.7 8.8 7.8 7.2

Q4 6.9 7.9 6.3 7.0 5.2 6.3 8.7 7.6 6.1 5.2

2002: Q1 6.9 7.8 6.7 7.2 5.2 5.5 7.3 7.4 6.8 4.9

Q2 6.8 7.4 6.4 7.2 5.0 5.9 7.6 7.5 6.5 5.1

Q3 6.4 7.5 5.8 6.5 4.6 6.0 7.5 7.3 6.5 5.3

Q4 5.7 6.9 5.1 5.5 4.6 5.2 6.7 7.6 6.4 4.5

2003: Q1 5.3 7.0 5.6 5.7 4.4 5.6 6.7 7.4 6.1 4.5

Q2 6.0 6.7 5.3 6.5 4.6 6.1 7.3 5.7 6.4 5.2

Q3 6.0 6.9 4.7 5.6 4.5 4.8 6.7 5.5 5.6 4.3

Q4 6.5 6.5 4.0 5.1 4.6 5.2 6.7 7.5 5.4 4.2

2004: Q1 5.8 7.0 5.2 5.7 4.3 5.9 6.4 6.3 5.7 3.8

Q2 4.8 6.3 5.2 6.2 4.6 6.4 6.9 6.2 6.4 4.1

Q3 6.2 6.6 4.8 5.5 4.8 5.2 6.1 6.7 6.7 4.9

Q4 6.2 6.4 5.2 5.4 5.1 6.0 7.5 6.4 7.0 5.2

(0.48) (0.07) (0.45) (0.88) (1.01) (0.81) (0.30) (0.22) (0.30) (0.10)

2005: Q1 6.2 7.4 6.4 6.3 5.3 6.0 7.2 7.5 7.1 6.0

(0.19) (0.16) (0.14) (0.71) (0.60) (0.67) (0.34) (0.59) (0.17) (0.15)

Q2 6.7 7.4 5.8 6.6 6.0 6.4 7.5 7.3 7.7 6.7

(0.19) (0.21) (0.77) (0.75) (0.28) (0.65) (0.33) (0.19) (0.05) (0.18)

Q3 7.1 7.7 6.9 6.3 6.1 7.2 7.6 7.2 8.2 6.8

(0.18) (0.23) (0.28) (0.70) (0.20) (0.57) (0.43) (0.30) (0.09) (0.07)

Q4 6.8 7.7 6.8 7.3 6.6 7.4 8.0 8.1 8.2 7.5

(0.80) (0.19) (0.35) (0.45) (0.23) (0.58) (0.49) (0.10) (0.07) (0.16)

2006: Q1 7.9 8.0 7.4 7.8 7.3 7.8 8.0 8.7 8.5 7.8

(0.29) (0.15) (0.21) (0.37) (0.13) (0.37) (0.29) (0.12) (0.26) (0.25)

Q2 8.4 8.3 7.7 7.9 7.6 8.3 8.6 8.8 9.1 7.8

(0.47) (0.18) (0.40) (0.54) (0.15) (0.53) (0.13) (0.26) (0.26) (0.17)

Q3 8.2 8.7 8.3 8.2 7.6 8.8 8.8 9.2 9.5 9.0

(0.58) (0.16) (0.12) (0.38) (0.30) (0.28) (0.29) (0.17) (0.21) (0.21)

Notes. NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachia, SE is Southeast, DL is

Delta States, SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

They are calculated from 100 replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling of banks) in each region.

19
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2115 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2115

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
 participate in the design, planning, and construction of a project to 
reclaim and reuse wastewater within and outside of the service area of 
              the Lakehaven Utility District, Washington.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2115

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
 participate in the design, planning, and construction of a project to 
reclaim and reuse wastewater within and outside of the service area of 
              the Lakehaven Utility District, Washington.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF LAKEHAVEN, WASHINGTON, WASTEWATER 
              RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT.

    The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act 
(Public Law 102-575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1635. LAKEHAVEN, WASHINGTON, WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE 
              PROJECT.

    ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
Lakehaven Utility District, Washington, is authorized to participate in 
the design, planning, and construction of, and land acquisition for, a 
project to reclaim and reuse wastewater, including degraded 
groundwaters, within and outside of the service area of the Lakehaven 
Utility District.
    ``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the project 
authorized by this section shall not exceed 25 percent of the total 
cost of the project.
    ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds for the 
operation and maintenance of the project authorized by this section.''.

SEC. 2. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.

    The table of sections in section 2 of such Act is amended by 
inserting after the item relating to section 1634 the following:

``Sec. 1635. Lakehaven, Washington, Water Reclamation and Reuse 
                            Project.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 5, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-114-01-SM

Wilfredo Morales

O R D E R

Defendant Morales’ motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 9). Trial has been rescheduled for the December 

2008 trial period. Defendant Morales shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than November 6, 2008. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance

shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: November 24, 2008 at 3:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: December 2, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:08-cr-00114-SM Document 10 Filed 10/27/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

October 27, 2008

cc: Swen Wiberg, Esq.

Robert Veiga, Esq.

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00114-SM Document 10 Filed 10/27/08 Page 2 of 2
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 12Federal Reserve Bank of: San FranciscoFilings received during the week ending October 20, 2007FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodMNB HOLDINGS CORPORATION                                                                                                CICNotice by Juan C.G. Araneta, Fernando G. Araneta, Maria M.G. Araneta and Margarita A. Holigores, all of Makati City, Philippines, Santiago G. Araneta and Marilou G. Joaquin, both of Pasig City, Philippines, and Hugo N. Bonilla, Newark, California, to retain shares and control of MNB Holdings Corporation, and thereby indirectly control its subsidiary, Mission National Bank, both of San Francisco, California.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 11/07/2007SHIZUOKA BANK, LTD., THE                                                                                                FBSEAThe Shizuoka Bank, Ltd., Shizuoka, Japan, to establish a branch office at 600 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York, pursuant to section 7(d) of the International Banking Act.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not applicableWELLS FARGO & COMPANY                                                                                                   4c8Wells Fargo & Company, through a new subsidiary of WFC Holdings Corporation, both of San Francisco, California, request for approval to purchase and sell electricity in the spot market and take and make delivery of electricity to settle commodity derivatives, pursuant to section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding Company Act.Newspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: Not available
EXHIBIT 

8 

Case 1:11-cv-02268-WJM-KLM Document 4 Filed 08/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
LITIGATION\2600138.1 

DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, 

STATE OF COLORADO 

Court: City and County Building 

Address 1437 Bannock Street 

 Denver, CO 80202 

Telephone: (720) 865-8301 

Plaintiff: UNITED WESTERN BANK,

v. 

Defendants: COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL 

CORPORATION, COUNTRYWIDE HOME 

MORTGAGE LOANS, INC., CWALT, INC., CWMBS, 

INC., COUNTRYWIDE CAPITAL MARKETS, 

COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORPORATION, 

ERIC P. SIERACKI, THOMAS K. MCLAUGHLIN, 

STANFORD L. KURLAND, DAVID A. SPECTOR, 

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, and UBS 

SECURITIES LLC.

_______________________________________________ 

▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲

Case Number: 10 CV 3325

Courtroom/Div.: 2

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT 

This matter is before the Court on specially-appearing Defendant Thomas K. 

McLaughlin’s unopposed motion for a brief extension of time to file his response to Plaintiff’s 

complaint. The Court has reviewed the motion, and the file, and being fully advised in the 

matter, HEREBY GRANTS the motion. Mr. McLaughlin shall file his response to Plaintiff’s 

complaint on or before July, 23, 2010, Plaintiff shall file any response to Mr. McLaughlin’s 

submission by August 23, 2010, and Mr. McLaughlin shall file any reply by September 7, 2010. 

DATED this ___________ day of July, 2010. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 

 __________________________________________ 

 Denver District Court Judge 

GRANTED 

 

 

Movant shall serve copies of this ORDER on 

any pro se parties, pursuant to CRCP 5, and 

file a certificate of service with the Court 

within 10 days. 

Dated: Jul 15, 2010 Herbert L. Stern, III 

District Court Judge 

DATE OF ORDER INDICATED ON ATTACHMENT

 

EFILED Document 

CO Denver County District Court 2nd JD 

Filing Date: Jul 15 2010 11:44AM MDT 

Filing ID: 32154131 

Review Clerk: Kari S Elizalde

Case 1:11-cv-02268-WJM-KLM Document 4 Filed 08/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
/s/ Judge Herbert L Stern 

Court: CO Denver County District Court 2nd JD 

Judge: Herbert L Stern 

File & Serve 

Transaction ID: 32138625 

Current Date: Jul 15, 2010 

Case Number: 2010CV3325 

Case Name: UNITED WESTERN BANK vs. COUNTRYWIDE FNCL CORP et al 

Court Authorizer: Herbert L Stern 

Case 1:11-cv-02268-WJM-KLM Document 4 Filed 08/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
#### HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James RUSSELL et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 6662.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Oct. 28, 1943.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 2, 1943.

Harris & Harris, of Mansfield, and Turner B. Morgan, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Booth & Lockard, of Shreveport, and Francis H. Alston, of Logansport, for ap-pellees.

HARDY, Judge.

This case was consolidated for trial in the District Court with the suit of J. Cook Williamson v. De Soto Wholesale Grocery Company, Inc., et al., No. 17,290 on the docket of the Eleventh Judicial District Court, De Soto Parish, Louisiana, No. 66SS on the docket of this Court.

For the reasons set forth in opinion this day handed down in J. Cook Williamson v. De Soto Wholesale Grocery Co., Inc., et al., 16 So.2d 739 the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kristan L. Nason, et al.

v. Civil No. 09-cv-00001-JL

Progressive Northern

Insurance Company

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for

June 22, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. will include a substantive, meaningful

discussion of the parties’ claims and defenses. Counsel are

expected to be prepared to engage in an open, cooperative

discussion in good faith. Counsel are reminded of the

obligations imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) and (4), and

should be prepared to explain the factual basis underlying any

claims or defenses they have pleaded.

Each party shall be represented at the Preliminary Pretrial

Conference by counsel authorized to bind the party on all

matters.

To the extent that the substance of this order constitutes a

departure from the customary Preliminary Pretrial practice to

Case 1:09-cv-00001-JL Document 16 Filed 06/19/09 Page 1 of 2
2

which counsel are accustomed, the court apologizes for the short

notice, and will bear this in mind at the conference.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: June 19, 2009

cc: Jonathan S. Frizzell, Esq.

Philip R. Waystack, Jr., Esq.

Wilfred J. Desmarais, Jr., Esq.

Case 1:09-cv-00001-JL Document 16 Filed 06/19/09 Page 2 of 2
B.7. Selected Measures of Financial Performance of Agricultural and Other Small Banks

Percent

Distribution of net income as a Average rate Rate N

share of average equity at of return of return 

agricultural banks on equity to assets 

25 percent Agri- Other Agri- Other A

Negative 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 and cultural Small cultural small cu

Period All banks income percent percent percent percent percent over banks Banks banks banks ba1996...... 100.0 2.1 5.6 33.4 41.6 14.2 2.6 .5 11.4 12.3 1.2 1.2 1997...... 100.0 1.6 5.9 34.5 39.7 14.2 3.1 1.1 11.4 12.3 1.2 1.2 1998...... 100.0 2.0 8.7 35.6 35.5 13.4 3.5 1.3 11.3 11.7 1.2 1.2 1999...... 100.0 2.9 7.9 34.8 33.3 14.2 4.9 1.9 11.8 11.9 1.2 1.1 2000...... 100.0 2.4 8.9 35.3 33.5 13.8 4.2 1.8 11.7 11.4 1.2 1.1 2001...... 100.0 3.1 12.6 37.6 28.6 13.1 3.7 1.3 10.8 10.4 1.1 1.0 2002...... 100.0 3.0 10.7 35.1 31.4 13.5 4.6 1.7 11.5 10.6 1.2 1.1 2003...... 100.0 2.7 12.2 36.6 29.3 12.9 4.4 1.8 11.2 10.7 1.2 1.1 2004...... 100.0 2.1 10.0 34.9 31.4 13.8 5.8 2.0 11.5 10.5 1.2 1.1 2005...... 100.0 1.7 10.1 34.5 29.9 14.6 6.4 2.8 11.8 10.7 1.2 1.1 2006...... 100.0 2.7 10.9 35.7 30.1 13.1 4.6 2.8 11.4 10.1 1.2 1.1 2002: Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.9 8.3 .9 .8  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 11.5 10.6 1.2 1.1 2003: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.0 2.9 .3 .3  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 6.0 5.6 .6 .6  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.9 8.5 .9 .8  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 11.2 10.7 1.2 1.1 2004: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.9 2.7 .3 .3  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 6.1 5.5 .6 .5  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.9 8.0 .9 .8  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 11.5 10.5 1.2 1.1 2005: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.0 2.9 .3 .3  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 5.9 5.6 .6 .6  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 9.0 8.3 .9 .8  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 11.8 10.7 1.2 1.1 2006: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.0 2.7 .3 .3  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 6.1 5.7 .6 .6  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 9.0 8.0 .9 .9  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 11.4 10.1 1.2 1.1 2007: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.8 2.3 .3 .3  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 5.7 4.6 .6 .5  Note. Agricultural and other banks are defined in the introduction to section B; small banks have less than $500 million in assets. Total primary anavailable at the end of the period specified) are measured as a percentage of total assets. Quarterly data are cumulative through the end of the quarte n.a. Not available.27
Order filed November 1, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00793-CV

IN RE CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY D/B/A BOBCAT COMPANY, 

Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

269th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-69076

ORDER

On October 28, 2022, relator Clark Equipment Company d/b/a Bobcat 

Company (“CEC” or “relator”) filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court.

See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, 

relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Cory Don Sepolio, presiding judge 

of the 269th District Court of Harris County, to vacate three orders: (1) the trial 

court’s February 18, 2022 order finding that “Plaintiffs have demonstrated a 

substantial likelihood of success on their claims for exemplary damages in 
2

accordance with CPRC chapter 41” as to CEC; (2) the trial court’s October 14, 

2022 order incorporating the February 18, 2022 finding pursuant to Chapter 41 and 

compelling production of CEC’s “current net worth” by November 4, 2022 at 5:00 

p.m.; and (3) the trial court’s March 10, 2022 order denying CEC’s motion to 

strike improper evidence used by RPIs in the hearing which resulted in the trial 

court’s February 18, 2022 Order. 

Relator also has filed a motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 

52.8(b), 52.10. Relator requests this Court to stay the trial court’s order of October 

14, 2022 requiring production of net worth evidence by November 4, 2022 pending 

this Court’s consideration of the merits of relator’s petition.

It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that relator’s 

request for mandamus relief requires further consideration and that relator will be 

prejudiced unless immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore grant

relator’s motion for temporary relief and issue the following order:

We order the trial court’s October 14, 2022 order requiring production of net 

worth evidence by November 4, 2022 stayed until a final decision by this Court on 

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this Court.

In addition, the Court requests the real parties in interest, to file a response to 

the petition for writ of mandamus on or before November 18, 2022. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 52.4.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-19-PB

Anthony Seward

 O R D E R

Anthony Seward has filed a pro se motion asking me to recuse

myself from this case. He bases his motion on comments I made at

his January 19, 2010 sentencing hearing.

A few days prior to the hearing, Seward filed a pro se

motion asking me to reconsider my prior ruling rejecting his

request to withdraw from his guilty plea. I began the sentencing

hearing by addressing this motion. I first questioned the

prosecutor concerning her opposition to the motion given that 

the sentence she had agreed to in the plea agreement was

substantially below the defendant’s guideline sentencing range. 

During this colloquy, I expressed my view that the sentence

called for in the plea agreement appeared to be too light given

the information contained in the presentence report. I then

entered into a discussion with the defendant and his counsel

Case 1:08-cr-00019-SM Document 68 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 3
concerning the potential risks and benefits that the defendant

faced if I granted his motion. During this discussion, I warned

the defendant that he had little to gain and much to lose if I

allowed him to withdraw from his guilty plea prior to sentencing. 

I explained that if he went forward with the sentencing, the

government would be bound by its agreement to seek a 60-month

sentence and he would retain the ability to withdraw from his

guilty plea if I was unwilling to accept the agreed-upon

sentence. In contrast, if he withdrew from his guilty plea 

before I completed the sentencing hearing, the government would

be free to seek a higher sentence in the event of a conviction

than the sentence called for in the plea agreement. I also

expressed the view that an acquittal was unlikely given the

evidence that the government had amassed against him. At the end

of the hearing, I gave the defendant a week to decide whether he

wished to withdraw from his guilty plea. 

I do not have a bias against the defendant and I have no

knowledge about the case apart from what I have learned in my

capacity as the presiding judge. My colloquy with the defendant

was designed to help him examine his options before he made a

difficult and, perhaps, self-destructive decision to withdraw

-2-

Case 1:08-cr-00019-SM Document 68 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 3
from a beneficial plea agreement. A reasonable person would 

not question my impartiality on the basis of this colloquy. 

Nevertheless, because the defendant appears to have misunderstood

my effort to assist him in making an informed decision, I have

decided to grant his request for recusal. 

I direct the clerk to reassign the case to another judge. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

February 1, 2010

cc: Debra Walsh, Esq.

Michael Ramsdell, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

-3-

Case 1:08-cr-00019-SM Document 68 Filed 02/01/10 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02272-WJM-MEH

GERUN L. SCURLOCK,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOWES HIW, INC.,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on January 5, 2012.

The Joint Request for Early Neutral Evaluation [filed January 4, 2012; docket #17] is

granted. An Early Neutral Evaluation pursuant to D.C. Colo. LCivR 16.6 is scheduled for

Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom A501 on the fifth floor of the Alfred A.

Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.

Counsel shall have all parties present, including, but not limited to, an adjustor if an

insurance company is involved, who shall have full authority to negotiate all terms and demands

presented by the case. “Full authority” means that the person who attends the evaluation has the

complete and unfettered capacity and authority to meet or pay all terms or amounts which are

demanded or sought by the other side of the case without consulting with some other person,

committee or agency. If any person has limits upon the extent or amount within which he or she is

authorized to meet or pay all terms demanded, that person does not have “full authority.” This

requirement is not fulfilled by the presence of counsel or an insurance adjustor alone.

In exceptional circumstances only, the appearance of an insurance representative by

telephone may be approved in advance of the evaluation. Any party seeking such relief should file

the appropriate motion with the Court.

So that we may hold productive discussions on the day of the evaluation, counsel shall

prepare and submit position statements to be submitted to the Magistrate Judge. 

The statement(s) shall contain an overview of the case from the presenter’s point of view,

shall summarize the evidence which supports that side’s claims, and any confidential comments the

party or counsel wishes to make, including any comments with regard to perceived weaknesses in

the case and any comments which would be helpful to the Magistrate Judge in evaluating the case.

The position statements shall be submitted no later than five business days prior to the date

of the evaluation. Statements and exhibits consisting of more than 30 pages are to be submitted to

Case 1:11-cv-02272-WJM-MEH Document 19 Filed 01/05/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Chambers in hard copy via regular mail or hand delivery.

Please remember that anyone seeking entry into the Alfred A. Arraj United States

Courthouse will be required to show a valid photo identification. See D.C. Colo. LCivR 83.2B.

Case 1:11-cv-02272-WJM-MEH Document 19 Filed 01/05/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2